Interference No. 104,745
analysis and some time trying to set up electrochromatography as well. Are these
projects important enough to us to take up this much instrument time? I am not
aware of the possibilities in the Laser interfacing but the EC work may be useful.
My fear is that he is in a "this is fun to play with" mode which is good for him but
not so good for us. I think what we most need, is improvements in LCMS of gel
digests, specifically cutting down analysis time so that we can run more samples
in less time. I think there are ways of doing this that don't involve such
speculative work as Victor is engaged in now. I would like to get Victor working
on ways to shorten the LC run times and column reequilibration times so that we
can have shorter LC runs. If you have some time in the next few days, perhaps
we can talk about these items.
Dr. Burlingame responded by e-mail: "OK I understand and agree with your priorities. I'll try
tomorrow." LX 1083.
However, because the foregoing testimony unambiguously demonstrates a conscious
decision on behalf of Dr. Laiko's employer to rank AP-MALDI below LCMS and possibly
electrochromatography insofar as Dr. Laiko's time and laboratory resources (e.g., Mariner 1)
were concerned, it defeats rather than supports Laiko's claim of reasonable diligence between
receipt of the repaired laser (24 February) and 9 March. See Griffith, 816 F.2d at 629,
2 USPQ2d at 1363-64 (Griffith held non-diligent in part because project at issue was given
second and often third priority in laboratory research); Hudson, 328 F.2d at 923, 140 USPQ at
573 ("we agree with the board that 'a test in a metal tube would have been of practical value in
the first instance'; that failure to so test was 'inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable
diligence'; and that such failure to test was a 'deliberate delay' motivated primarily by Dr. Janes'
desire not to interfere with equipment then in use on other projects."); Watkins v. Wakefield,
443 F.2d 1207, 1210, 170 USPQ 274, 275 (CCPA 1971)(distinguishing facts from those in
Hudson, characterized as a case which "involved a situation where the inventor or his
- 61 -
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007