Interference No. 104,544 Paper149
McDonald v. Miyazaki Page 27
A. Nobody asked me that.
Q. If you were an examiner, wouldn't you want to know?
A. Not really. And I'll tell you why. If you go back to what I've been
trying to tell you all along about the science involved in describing
the TSF molecule and the megakaryocyte growth and development
factor by Amgen, they're identical. Identical. The word means the
same, identical. There are no differences.
So why would you waste your time, if you were the
examiner, wanting to know the amino acid sequence of a molecule
that's already been described? Why would you do that?
Q. So you took it upon yourself not to inform -
A. No, no, wait a minute.
[Contentious interlude, lines 7-18, omifted)
Q. Dr. McDonald, are N-terminal fragments, TPO as you define them
in your 666 specification as comprising amino acid 154 through
332, biologically active in treatment of thrombocytopenia?
A. Technically, your question is incorrect. N terminus is not 154 to
332.
Q. Are C-terminal fragments biologically active in treating
thrombocytopenia?
A. A portion of the C terminus connected to the N terminus is. I do
know of one experiment that I leamed from, oh, I can't remember
his name. Lok. I think his name was Lok. He worked at
Zymogenetics. He told me in that [sic, the?] C terminus sometimes
had activity. But we never tested that.
Q. Did you ever test the biological activity of a C-terminal fragment as
you define a C-terminal fragment in column 7 [1048 at 71 of your
patent?
A. What I was trying to say was that there -
Q. Could you answer that question yes or no, please.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007