Interference No. 103,675
single, specific compound (Count 2). Chen et al. have utterly failed
to explain in their brief how the evidence on which they rely as
evidence of an actual reduction to practice of the subject matter of
the counts "reads on" the specific limitations required by each of the
counts. For example, what are the values of "R1", "R2", "R3" and "R4"
in Chen et al.'s evidence that they actually reduced to practice a
compound within the subject matter defined by Count 4?
Chen et al.'s brief does not direct us to the evidence which
establishes how Dr. Chen identified any compound within the counts in
the reaction mixtures he prepared. Neither does Chen et al.'s brief
direct us to the evidence which shows how Dr. Chen separated any
compound within any count from the reaction mixtures he prepared or
even whether the samples he submitted were mixtures of compounds.
According to Chen et al.'s involved patent, the product obtained by
the reaction of DAST with certain taxol starting materials is a
mixture of a 7-"-fluoro taxol derivative and a 7,8-cyclopropyl
derivative (column 9, lines 41 through 47). No where in the evidence
is there any showing describing how Dr. Chen resolved any such mixture
into its component parts. While Dr. Chen's uncorroborated laboratory
notebooks include sketches of what he has testified are
representations of thin layer chromatography (TLC) plates showing the
separation of starting material from product, these sketches do not
77
Page: Previous 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007