Interference 103,781
Deposed in Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
No. 96-505 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 1998), Dr. Adang testified as follows
relative to a computer search document generated in September of
1986, identified as MC035038 (AR 0371-0372)(emphasis added):
Q. About a third of the way down the statement
appears, “Search of hd73.trunc, ATTTA.” Do you see that,
sir?
A. I do.
Q. This is a reference to a search which you made of
the nucleotide sequence in a native Bt gene to see if that
sequence contained the sequence ATTTA; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the reason you performed the search was
because you believed at the time that the ATTTA sequence
was potentially a destabilizing sequence in the Bt gene
that interfered with expression of the Bt gene in plants;
correct?
A. Yes. With, you know, emphasis on the term
“potentially,” yeah. Yes.
In the same deposition, Dr. Adang testified (AR 0374; emphasis
added):
Q. As a consequence of these searches, is it true
that the ATTTA sequence was removed from the gene, the
design of which is described in the specification of the
‘600 and ‘862 patent[s]?
THE WITNESS: As a consequence of my awareness of Shaw
Kamen sequences and awareness of the presence in Bt genes,
I considered that these sequences may have a destabilizing
effect on Bt messenger RNA, so when I designed the example
with a synthetic Btt sequence I removed ATTTA sequences.
-149-
Page: Previous 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007