Interference No. 104,522 Paper108
Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 18
29. According to Mr. Ezell, Ex 2034 is an accurate copy of the original spectral data
generated from sample 94A-85-1 (NR, p. 186,11. 1-23) except that the "chemical
structure with '94A-85-l' handwritten thereunder ...was added ...subsequent to its
delivery to Dr. Al. Nichols" (NR, p. 176, 16).
30. Mr. Ezell presumed that Dr. Nichols drew the chemical structure on the data
sheet, but did not see him do so (NR, p. 11, 11. 3-17).
31. Dr. Nichols admitted that he made all the handwritten entries on NMR scan Ex
2034 (NR, p. 52,11. 8-14).
32. Mr. Ezell testified that the "chemical structure drawn on the spectrum data sheet
is consistent with the NMR spectrum data" (NR, p. 176,% 6).
33. Assuming without determining that the chemical structure of sample 94A-85-1 is
(NN-diethyl)-4-ureido-5,7-dichloro-2-carboxy-quinoline methyl ester, the compound
would have 17 protons (NR, p. 189,11. 4-14).
34. At best, Mr. Ezell could only account for 16 of these protons (NR, p. 201, 1. 15
p. 203J. 7). Mr. Ezell admitted that the 17" proton was not shown on the data sheet,
but opined that it was an "exchangeable" hydrogen that "might be exchanging with the
water [solvent] too rapidly to see" (Ex 2054; NR, p. 193,11. 7-18).
35. Mr. Ezell also did not conclusively identify an expected methoxy peak (NR, p.
199,11. 14-25; p. 200,11. 13-16; p. 201,11. 1-13 and p. 203,11. 12-18).
36. Similarly, Dr. Nichols identified 16 protons from the proton NMR scan but could
not conclusively identify the methoxy peak (NR, p. 52,1. 15 - p. 54,1. 21; p. 56,11. 12
23).
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007