Patent Interference No. 103,892 Page 16
The Ichinose declaration nowhere states that the invention was actually reduced to
practice. It says (p. 6) that Ichinose and Davie wrote the article(s).
The Davie declaration raises the subject of reduction to practice twice: (1) at page 8,
it states that Ichinose and Davie conceived and reduced to practice DNA sequences
that code for polypeptides that are functionally homologous to the a and b subunits of
Factor XIII “as taught and claimed in the patent applications” prior to June 26, 1986, and
(2) at page 9, it states that:
In generating the subject matter described in the article, Messrs. McMullen and
Fujikawa worked under the supervision and/or direction of Dr. Ichinose and me
[i.e., Davie]. More specifically, under the direction of Dr. Ichinose, Brad McMullen
provided amino acid sequence data of the intact Factor XIII b subunit protein and
cyanogen bromide peptides. In addition, under the direction of Dr. Ichinose, Kazuo
Fujikawa prepared the b subunit of Factor XIII and cyanogen bromide fragments
thereof. Under the direction of Dr. Ichinose, Kazuo Fujikawa prepared Factor XIII b
subunit antibodies for use in cloning the factor XIIIb subunit.
These statements are made by an inventor, and thus need to be corroborated.
Moreover, they are unsubstantiated by any independent and objective evidence, such
as lab notebooks. The statements give us no insight as to what was actually prepared
and, if it was an embodiment of the count, when it was prepared. The first statement
describes an alleged reduction to practice of DNA sequences encoding proteins
homologous to the subunits of Factor XIII. Absent an explanation of what Davie means
by “homologous,” it is impossible to determine whether Davie reduced an embodiment
of the count to practice or something entirely different. The second set of statements do
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007