Interference No. 104,522 Paper108
Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 35
However, there is no testimony by anyone other than Dr. Nichols himself that it
was not within ordinary skill in the art to synthesize 4-urea kynurenate derivatives, after
Dr. Snell's disclosure of these compounds. Moreover, the facts do not lend much
support to Dr. Nichols'opinion that undue or extensive research was required to
determine whether a 4-urea kynurenate derivative could actually be synthesized.
72. Dr. Nichols is not an organic chemist (NR, p. 6, %T 3-7). According to Dr.
Nichols, his "work in designing and synthesizing novel kynurenic acid derivatives
involved the inventive contributions of K. Lemone Yielding" (NR, pp. 9-10).
73. During cross-examination, Dr. Nichols explained the inventive contributions of Dr.
Yielding as
A. He and I just set design compounds together and discussed what
we would do with them, what might be the best way to synthesize them,
what questions we could investigate by producing these types of
compounds.
Q. Do you recall any specific inventive contribution that Dr. Yielding
made?
A. Oh, definitely. He and I talked about doing this on at least a weekly
basis, sometimes more often. It's -- we interact on what we were going to
do and why, and possible ways to do it.
Q. Now, did he contribute to a particular compound?
A. He made -- He contributed to how best to do the syntheses and
what experiments we would undertake to show that the products are doing
what we want them to do. We interact regularly. I can't -- I can't think of
how he would no -- We just interact as coworkers. Bounce ideas,
procedures, techniques off of each other.
[NR, p. 30,1. 9 - p. 31,1. 9.]
There is no evidence that Dr. Nichols discussed any unusual or unexpected synthesis
problems, approaches, etc. with Dr. Yielding. Dr. Yielding is silent as to whether he
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007