Interference No. 104,733
Page No. 9
Paper No. 27, p. 3, admitting UW facts 6-16.)
F1 1. In seeking to provoke an interference with UW's '529 patent, Lilly represented to
the reissue application examiner that:
... it is very likely that the actual Foster [UW] sequence is identical to the
corresponding Bang [Lilly] sequence. Indeed, the sequence deposited by
Foster in GenBank is identical to the corresponding sequence in claim 1
of the Bang application.
Lilly also informed the examiner that:
The Differences Between the Bang and Foster Sequences are Probably Foster
Mistakes
As the Patent Office has recently recognized, it is well known that
sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. fornifted
footnote] Evidence supporting the conclusion that the differences between
the Bang and Foster sequences are due to sequencing errors by Foster
may be found within the Foster patents themselves: the protein C DNA
sequences shown in Figure 2 of Foster contains only one of the base
differences: that at position 99. Further evidence may be found in the
publications of Foster. Specifically, Foster published articles in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that showed DNA
sequences matching both Patent Figure 3 (two base differences) and
Figure 2 (one base difference). [omitted footnote] Later, Foster made a
deposit of their protein C DNA sequence in GenBank; this deposited
sequence is identical to the sequence of the Bang application.
Applicants submit that this evidence, when viewed as a whole, clearly
supports the conclusion that the two nucleotide differences in the Foste r
sequence are due to sequencing errors, and not due to true differences in cDNA
sequence.
(Paper No. 17, pages 6-8, %13, bold emphasis added; Paper No; 27, p. 3, admitting UW
facts 6-16.)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007