Interference 103,781
describe that. [MDX 1464 (see also 1441, 1484)] actually
is the memo pasted into his book, but at some time or
another –- I don’t remember exactly when –- he had given
me a copy of this.
(MR 1036-1037, Delaware I trial transcript, p. 1033, l. 22, to
p. 1036, l. 3). Dr. Rogers also testified that (FPB 90-91):
David Fischhoff pasted [the same document, MDX 1464
(see also MDX 1441, 1484),] in his notebook. . . .
The date on this document is December 12th, 1986. . . .
I saw it sometime prior to that as a memo, before it got
pasted in the notebook. So sometime between our
discussion and when it went into the notebook here.
(MR 1038, Delaware I trial transcript, p. 1042, l. 7-17).
An associate of Dr. Perlak, Dr. Harry Klee testified that he
knew of the existence Dr. Fischhoff’s “list of ideas regarding
synthesizing or modifying a Bt gene” (MR 0654, Delaware I trial
transcript, p. 997, l. 2-7). When asked if he recalled seeing
the type of work Dr. Perlak was doing with Bt genes encoding
toxin in late 1986/early 1987, Dr. Klee testified:
A. Yes. I think there were three basic things that were
guiding what he was trying to do with that gene. Number
one, he was trying to remove sequences which were
thought to destabilize plant gene expression. These were
so-called ATTTA sequences. That was sort of the first
rule.
The second rule was he was looking to take out what
were referred to as polyadenylation signals which were
sequenced that would cause the gene to stop being made
in the plant.
And then the third part was, he was trying to
restructure the gene so that it encoded the same protein,
but used what were referred to as plant-preferred codons,
-78-
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007