0
Interference No. 104,522 Paper108
Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 39
and (ii) 4-amino-7-chloro-2-carboxyquinoline methyl ester, respectively, to make 4-urea
derivatives thereof. Dr. Nichols testified that Exs 2017 and 2019 are copies of his lab
notebooks documenting these experiments, i.e., (a) page 94A-2 and (b) page 94A-14,
respectively. Dr. Nichols further testified that neither experiment produced the desired
product. [NR, pp. 11-12, %% 30, 33, 36; pp. 27-28, TT 15, 18.1 Dr. Nichols did not state
how or when he determined that the desired product was not produced.
82. On (c) January 20 and (d) January 28, 1994, Dr. Nichols attempted his second
synthetic scheme, i.e., reacting urea with the 4-amino group of (i) 4-amino-5,7-dichloro
2-carboxyquinoline methyl ester and (ii) 4-amino-7-chloro-2-carboxyquinoline methyl
ester, respectively, to make 4-urea derivatives thereof. Dr. Nichols testified that Exs
2017 and 2018 are copies of his lab notebook pages documenting these experiments,
i.e., (c) page 94A-2 and (d) page 94A-1 1. Dr. Nichols testified that neither experiment
produced the desired product. [NR, p. 12, TT 31-32, 36; p. 28, %T 16-17, 21.] Dr.
Nichols did not state how or when he determined that the desired product was not
produced.
83. On February 9, 1994, Dr. Nichols combined samples from the experiments
reacting (ii) 4-amino-7-chloro-2-carboxyquinoline methyl ester with (b) isocyanate or (d)
urea and sent 52 mg of the combined sample labeled as 94A-1 3-111 to Dr. Snell
(Tabakoff) (Ex 2017, p. 013; NR, p. 12, T 34; p. 28, T 19).
84. On February 16, 1994, Dr. Nichols received results NMR data showing that the
combined sample did not contain the desired product. He then either called or e-mailed
Dr. Snell to tell him that 94A-13-111 was the 4-amino, not 4-urea, derivative (NR, p. 75, 1.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007