Interference No. 104,436 Paper 98
Shyamala v. Hillman Page 7
[45] Page 43 of Dr. Shyamala's notebook shows two northern blots showing the results of the tissue
expression analysis [1024 at 43]. The one on the left is labeled "G3PDH". The one on the right
is unlabeled, but appears above a printout labeled "G3PDH".
(46] "G3PDH" is not defined. Note that glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (hg6pdl) was identified
as a protein with about 80% homology to MIP.
[47] The right northern blot shows strong expression for B, K, Li, P, and Sp; some expression for Lu;
little expression for M; and no expression for H at between 1.4 kb and 2.4 kb [1024 at 43].
[48] The left northern blot shows strong expression for B, K, Li, Sp, and M; but little or no expression
for H, Lu, or P at between 1.4 kb and 2.4 kb [ 1024 at 43].
[49] According to Dr. Shyamala, the abbreviations mean heart (H), brain (B), kidney (K), liver (Li),
lung (Lu), pancreas (P), spleen (S) [sic, Sp?], and striated muscle (M) [1025 at 10-11].
[50] Based on this data, Dr. Shyamala concluded that MIP expression shows tissue specificity [1025
at 11].
(51] Hillman did not cross examine any of Shyamala's priority witnesses.
[52] Despite some inconsistencies and gaps in the narrative, we deem the testimony of Dr. Shyamala
and Mr. Khoja to be essentially credible for the purposes of this decision.
[53] In deciding Hillman Preliminary Motion 1, the Board determined that claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 did
not lack utility under 35 U.S.C. 10 1, based on Example 5, which corresponds to Shyamala's
method-of-use claim 6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007