Interference No. 103,675
"consistent" with Dr. Chen's proposed structure and Dr. Kingston's
after the fact conclusion that the spectra obtained were "consistent"
with Dr. Chen's proposed structure are not independent analysis or
even knowledge independent of Dr. Chen because they each relied on Dr.
Chen's proposed structure for purposes of their analysis. Frilette v.
Kimberlin, supra. Further, Huang testified that she relied on more
than simply the spectra (CR 664, line 3 through CR 667, line 3; and CR
674, lines 3-19). In other words, the spectra alone would have been
insufficient to "prove" the structure of the sample compound. Dr.
Kingston's reference to CX 57 as being "consistent" with the proposed
structure also relies on the representations of Dr. Chen and therefore
cannot be said to be knowledge independent of the inventors. It also
cannot be determined from Kingston's conclusion what formed the
underlying basis for that conclusion. As we have stated previously,
NMR spectra in general and these particular NMR spectra specifically
are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Further, the
date the "re-plot" was generated, May 13, 1993, is subsequent to
Bouchard et al.'s effective filing date and, therefore, cannot
establish prior invention by Chen et al.
BMS-183583
According to Dr. Chen's uncorroborated testimony, in
December 1991, he prepared a sample from a 7-epi-taxol and DAST (CX
116
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007