Interference No. 103,675
Contrariwise, Bouchard et al. urge that to the extent Chen
et al. actually tested compounds alleged to be compounds within the
counts, all Chen et al.'s testing is inadequate to prove a practical
utility. Bouchard et al. argue, inter alia, that all Chen et al.'s in
vitro testing is inadequate because Chen et al. have failed to
establish the necessary correlation between the results of the in
vitro testing and the compounds' ability to kill or inhibit tumor
growth in mammals. Although no count in this interference recites any
utility, Bouchard et al. speak of "the intended functional setting for
the taxol analogs of the counts" (page 17 of Bouchard et al.'s
opposition brief, Paper Number 288). As evidence in support of this
argument, Bouchard et al. cite to the testimony of Drs. Vayas and
Kadow who testified that small structural changes to the taxol
molecule can result in analogs whose antitumor efficacy differs
substantially from taxol's efficacy. See page 18 of Paper Number 288.
Bouchard et al. also argue that because Chen et al.'s testing was a
test of a mixture of compounds, one of which (the 7-"-fluoro taxol
derivative) was known to possess tumor inhibiting properties itself,
that Chen et al.'s results cannot, necessarily, be attributed to the
7,8-cyclopropyl taxol derivative. See pages 27 and 28 of Paper Number
288. Bouchard et al., relying on Chen et al.'s own witness, attack the
sufficiency of the in vivo testing as being based on an inadequate
84
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007