Interference No. 104,101
Page 27
contains notations that would appear to be elemental analysis results. Yet, Lilly has failed to
explain how the elemental analysis notations in his notebook demonstrate that Mr. Cullinan
produced the LY 311583 compound structure as opposed to a different compound having the
same empirical formula. Indeed, Lilly has failed to explain the “calc” values and the “fd” values
listed on page 266 of Mr. Cullinan’s notebook.
Our review of the underlying documents fails to persuade us that it is more probable than
not that Mr. Cullinan correctly identified that structure of the compounds he manufactured. For
example, Mr. Cullinan testified that on March 23, 1993 he submitted the product from the further
preparation of the compound described on p. 266 of his notebook for mass spectroscopy analysis
and elemental analysis under request PC 469,823. (LX 1152, ¶ 38). Mr. Cullinan states that the
mass spectroscopy and elemental analysis helped to confirm that he made a compound falling
within the scope of Count 2. PC request 469,823 contains the notation “496.07” under the
heading “Approx. M.W.”4 and also “M.S. mw=460 FD” under a heading “CONDITIONS.”
Based upon our informal calculations, the HCl structure depicted on PC request 469,823 should
have a molecular weight of approximately 496 and the unsalified structure (no HCl) should have
a molecular weight of approximately 460. Mr. Cullinan, however, fails to explain why the
request lists “mw=460” for the depicted HCl structure. While Mr. Cullinan and Lilly could and
should have explained such notations, they did not.
Additionally, several of Mr. Cullinan’s PC requests contain notations that appear to be
the first name of an analyst who presumably would have conducted the tests requested. (See,
4We assume that the notation “Approx. M.W.” refers to approximate molecular weight.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007