Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
any entries in Cibelli's notebooks vis-à-vis any count; nor are
any of the data in the notebook explained as to their origin,
meaning, or reliability.
Diligence
45. Campbell has been accorded the benefit for priority in
this interference of its UK application, filed on 31 August 1995.
(Paper 81 at 3)
46. Stice cites a second entry from Dr. Stice's notebook as
evidence of the beginnings of a "concerted effort to reduce this
invention to practice: "Try [sic: Tried] to use the
electroporation to introduce $-geo into fibroblast cells bovine
(Jose's). The idea is to use these transgenic cells in NT to
produce fetuses and offspring? machine?"). (Paper 92 at 10,
square bracketed remarks added by Stice omitted.)
47. Stice provides a table that begins at page 10 of its
priority brief and runs to the top of page 21, in which dates are
paired against brief descriptions of activity, which are said to
be summaries of notebook pages from Dr. Jose Cibelli's laboratory
notebook.
48. Stice, in its principal brief, has not directed our
attention to any testimony explaining the meaning or significance
of any entries in the table.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007