elicit an immune response from a human subject when the antibodies are injected than would the
constant region from a non-human source” (Exh. 2103 and Exh. 2102 at 11:26-12:12).
50. In its preliminary motion 5, Glaxo argues that (Paper 51 at 20):
Dr. Youle states that Cabilly does not describe the invention as being directed to a
therapeutic method [Exhibit 2012]; and that
Dr. Youle and Dr. Vitetta both concluded that the 1983 and 1988 Cabilly applications do
not describe the invention of Count 1 or any claims that correspond thereto [Exhibit 2012 and
2028].
51. In its preliminary motions 3 and 5, Glaxo does not point to specific portions of the
testimony of Dr. Youle or Dr. Vitetta in support of its position that the Cabilly applications do
not describe a therapeutic method.
52. Glaxo points to some specific portions of the testimony of Dr. Youle and Dr.
Vitetta in its reply to Cabilly opposition 3 (FF8 50 and Paper 154 at 7-8).
8 Finding of fact.
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007