Interference No. 104,522 Paper 108
Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 41
according to Dr. Nichols, the theoretically expected 4-urea product could not be isolated
from this experiment. [Ex 2018; NR, p. 13, T 39; pp. 29-30, 126; p. 79,1. 16 - p. 82, 1.
11.1
Nichols argues that "[a]lthough Dr. Nichols was unable to successfully isolate the
expected product, his documentation of this [March 23, 1994 synthesis] experiment
clearly supports the Junior Party's knowledge of both the specific chemical structure of
the compound and an operative method of making it" (NB, p. 32, 11).
89. It is Nichols' position that "Dr. Nichols' lab notebooks alone are adequate to
corroborate his testimony of conception" (NRB, p. 6, ý 3).
However, the same may be said of Dr. Nichols'lab notebooks alone vis-a-vis
Nichols'first two "inoperable" synthetic schemes.
90. Next follows Dr. Nichols' (a) April 11, 1994, (b) May 3, 1994, (c) July 1, 1994 and
(d) July 13, 1994 experiments discussed above.
In summary, the evidence suggests that Dr. Nichols (i) attempted two synthetic
schemes on two days, January 20, 1994 and February 3, 1994, (ii) thought of a third
"operable" synthetic scheme on February 15, 1994, seemingly as a matter of course,
before, (iii) he found out that the first two schemes did not yield the expected product on
February 16, 1994 and (iv) began his first allegedly successful synthesis on March 23,
1994 because he had to wait for a triphosgene reagent ordered from Aldrich Chemical
Company to arrive. The evidence further suggests that Dr. Nichols knew that aliphatic
and aromatic compounds differ in their chemical reactivity and that the prior art
recognized that phosgene reacts with both aliphatic and aromatic primary amines and
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007