Interference No. 104,745
The testimony concerning activities from the date of receipt of the repaired laser up to
9 March lacks specificity as to dates and acts and also seems to reflect the witnesses's deductions
about what must have occurred rather than their recollection of what occurred. For example, Dr.
Baldwin testified: "In the time period between February 24-26, 1998, I informed Dr. Laiko
and/or Mr. Walls that the repaired spare nitrogen laser had arrived back to the UCSF Mass
Spectrometry Facility. To the best of my recollection, Dr. Laiko immediately took possession of
the nitrogen laser upon receipt of this notification." Decl. (LX 1037) ¶ 58. However, Dr.
Baldwin admitted on cross-examination that he had no specific recollection of informing Dr.
Laiko that the laser had been returned to UCSF, instead explaining that he knew Dr. Laiko was
"extremely anxious to get his hands on this laser" and that "it's inconceivable that it would have
been sitting around in a box without him getting his hands on it." Laiko Depo., LR 254, ll. 4-15.
Walls, on cross-examination, Walls Depo., LR 562, ll. 8-13, likewise admitted that he had no
specific recollection of informing Dr. Laiko that the repaired laser had been received, as he
asserted in his
declaration testimony that: "In the time period between February 24-26, 1998, either Dr.
Baldwin or myself informed Dr. Laiko that the repaired spare nitrogen laser had arrived back to
the UCSF Mass Spectrometry Facility. To the best of my recollection, Dr. Laiko immediately
took possession of the nitrogen laser upon receipt of this notification." Walls Decl. (LX 1079) ¶
19.
Consequently, there is inadequate corroboration for Dr. Laiko's claim that he took possession of
the laser as soon as it was received by UCSF. Laiko Decl. (LX 1037) ¶ 54.
- 55 -
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007