activity in COX-2 inhibitors. Koboldt gave no sufficient
factual basis for the opinion that the in vitro results
obtained for SC-58394 would have been predictive of anti-
inflammatory activity in vivo. We have not been directed to
other evidence of record establishing a known correlation
between the in vitro activity Koboldt said she observed and in
vivo activity in COX-2 inhibitors. We note that Huang does
not supply any rebuttal evidence in its reply brief (Paper3
50) in response to Prasit's arguments that "the Huang record
fails to establish any correlation between the Koboldt in
vitro testing and any actual anti-inflammatory or analgesic
utility clearly required for an actual reduction to practice"
(Paper 49 at 16). Without further explanation on the record
of the data obtained by Koboldt and the relationship between
the in vitro testing done by Koboldt and in vivo utility, we
can only speculate as to the significance of, and the weight
to be given, the Koboldt testing. On this record, Huang has
not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Koboldt
testing established a successful reduction to practice of SC-
58394.
3 We acknowledge Huang's arguments at Paper 50 at 13; however, the
argument of counsel is not evidence. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129
F.3d at 595, 44 USPQ2d at 1615.
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007