Interference 103,781
had specified, I would have predicted they would work
equivalently.
Moreover, David Fischhoff did not believe that native Bt gene
sequences modified in accordance with methods claimed in Adang’s
patents would be more highly expressed in plants than unmodified
native Bt gene sequences (MR0449, p. 1101, l. 2, to p. 1102,
l. 10):
Q. What was your reaction to finding out those patents had
issued?
A. I was really surprised even shocked to find out that
those patents had issued.
Q. Why?
A. Really for three reasons. First of all, we looked at
those patents when they issued, saw what the text described
and what the claims were and compared it to our own work
and, you know, we had been confident all along, Fred and
I, that we had been the first to invent the synthetic Bt
solution. And I was just surprised to see that the Patent
Office had issued patents like this to somebody other than
the two of us, to be honest.
Q. Okay.
A. And in addition, we had asked the Patent Office to
declare what is called an interference, it’s a priority
contest.
. . . . .
Q. At the time you didn’t believe that the claims
proscribed [sic] would work; is that right?
A. That’s right. And that’s the other reason I was
really shocked to see these patents issue, because when
I had a chance to study the claims and saw that what they
really seemed to say was take out one XCG or one AATGAA
from Bt gene and you get higher expression in plants, I
-50-
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007