Interference No. 104,745
spectrometer, as allegedly required by Hitzeman v. Rutter, 243 F.3d 1345, 58 USPQ2d 1161
(Fed. Cir. 2001). In support, Bai notes the proposal's observation that
[t]he sensitivity of a proposed APMALDI instrument (Fig. 1) may be expected [to
be] much less compared with [the] usual MALDI TOF instrument. Assuming the
same ion production in both cases, ion transparency of any atmospheric pressure
interface is much less than 100%; in usual MALDI instrument nearly 100% of
produced ions are detected. Thus a main goal of a first experiments may be just
to prove a possibility of [the] new APMALDI technique.
LX 1041, at 3-4. Dr. Laiko explained the reasons for this skepticism as follows:
A. At that time, to the best of my knowledge, not even the possibility to
generate ions under atmospheric pressure through the MALDI process was
demonstrated.
Q. At atmospheric pressure, you mean?
A. Yes. This is the first point. Then if it would be possible, if it was
possible, you need to transport the ions. So there are many uncertainties, as usual.
Q. Again, I think I understand you, but just to be clear, you really thought
there were at least two problems. One would be when a matrix analyte
combination was subjected to a laser at atmospheric pressure, there could be a
reasonable doubt that ions were even going to be generated. That would be one.
And two would be, even if they were generated, would they be captured
and transported to the mass spec.
Do I understand you correctly?
A. Yes. That's right.
Laiko Depo. (LR 61. l. 21 to LR 62, l. 13.) Laiko's skepticism continued until his 14 March
1998 actual reduction to practice:
MR. VOIGHT: Q. We've talked specifically about the time frame back in
October, and what I'm saying is nothing would have changed to change anyone's
view between October and the time in March when you demonstrated that it in
fact worked?
- 40 -
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007