The other Koboldt testing and the Veenhuizen and Anderson
testing
We hold that the following testing by Monsanto employees
did not inure to the benefit of the Huang inventors:
(1) the Koboldt testing of SC-60246, SC-60247,
SC-60248, SC-60667, and SC-60668 (Exh. 2029 at ¶¶10-14);
(2) the Veenhuizen testing (consisting of the in vivo
testing of SC-60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, and SC-
60668) (Exh. 2044 at ¶¶6-10); and
(3) the Anderson testing (consisting of the in vivo
testing of SC-60668) (Exh. 2048 at ¶6).
However, even if the above testing did inure to the
benefit of the Huang inventors, we hold that Huang has not
shown that the testing established a practical utility for the
tested compound. The Koboldt testimony regarding the testing
of SC-60246, SC-60247, SC-60248, SC-60667, or SC-60668 suffers
from the same deficiencies as the Koboldt testimony regarding
her testing of SC-58394. The testing by Monsanto employees
Veenhuizen and Anderson was directed to an in vivo utility;
however, the testimony provided by the employees regarding the
testing lacks an adequate explanation and interpretation of
the results obtained. Each of the Monsanto employees drew the
same conclusion regarding each compound tested (i.e., that
35
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007