Interference No. 104,101
Page 26
1. Lilly’s Documentary Evidence Fails to Demonstrate Sufficient
Corroboration that Mr. Cullinan Manufactured a Compound Having the
LY 311583 Structure
Lilly has presented alleged documentary evidence of an actual reduction to practice for
Lilly’s compound LY 311583. The evidence, however, is primarily the inventor’s own
documents. Specifically, Lilly directs our attention to the inventor’s notebook pages, the
inventor’s request for physical chemistry (“PC”) laboratory analysis as well as the inventor’s
request for a Lilly serial number. (Paper No. 205, p. 8). An inventor’s own unwitnessed
documentation, however, does not necessarily corroborate an inventor's testimony about
inventive facts. Id.
Rule 37 C.F.R. §1.671(f) provides that the significance of documentary and other
evidence identified by a witness in an affidavit shall be discussed with particularity. We note
that Mr. Cullinan’s laboratory notebook pages and PC analysis requests contain notations
apparently indicating that various tests were run on the products Mr. Cullinan is said to have
made. Yet, both Lilly and Mr. Cullinan have failed to explain the source of the various notations
or the meaning of the notations.
As to the source material for the notations, Lilly has failed to explain whether the
notations were taken directly from the “printout of the results in the test(s) conducted” or whether
they represent Mr. Cullinan’s uncorroborated interpretation of the results. (See, LX 1152, ¶ 23).
As to the meaning of the notations contained in the notebook pages and PC requests, Lilly has
failed to sufficiently explain how they “confirm” that Mr. Cullinan made a compound having the
structure identified as compound 311583. For example, page 266 of Mr. Cullinan’s notebook
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007