Interference 103,781 What evidence does Adang cite to the contrary? Adang argues that the evidence shows that Drs. Adang and Murray conceived of the invention defined by Claim 3 of Fischhoff’s involved application no later than September 20, 1986. Adang argues that “Dr. Murray believed that polyadenylation signals were involved with the low Bt expression . . . AR2467: 22-2468:22)” prior to December 12, 1986 (AB 49, Fact 115). To the contrary, Dr. Murray testified in the Southern California infringement case as follows (AR 2467, l. 1, to AR 2471, l. 8) (emphasis added): Q. In 1985, Dr. Murray, you didn’t know that just by changing - just by removing a plant consensus splice site that you would get higher expression of the Bt gene in plants, did you? A. I thought it was possible that that would result in higher expression, but I did not know it. Q. In fact, there were many things that you thought that would - were the source of the problem for expression of the Bt gene in plants at that time; isn’t that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And in continuing into 1986, you still thought that there were many, many sources of the problem for expression of Bt in plants; isn’t that right? A. Many potential sources. Q. And as between those potential sources, you didn’t know which one was prohibiting expression of Bt in plant, did you? A. That’s correct. -138-Page: Previous 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007