Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
the nucleus to be transferred must be a "cultured diploid bovine
fibroblast in the G1 phase of the cell cycle." Stice, in its
principal brief, has not directed our attention to any testimony
or other evidence indicating that one skilled in the art would
have recognized that Stice's sentence teaches or discloses the
limitation in count 4 that the transferred nucleus be in the G1
phase of the cell cycle. Similarly, the further limitations that
a nucleus be implanted into an unactivated enucleated metaphase
II-arrested oocyte, and that the reconstructed embryo be
maintained "without activation for a sufficient time to allow the
reconstructed embryo to become capable of developing to term,"
are not apparent from the Stice sentence. Stice has not
presented any testimony or other evidence to bridge the gap
between the sentence and the subject matter of count 4.
Although Stice relies on Dr. Stice's notebook entry of
27 June 1995, as evidence of diligence, we may consider whether
this entry is evidence of conception of an embodiment within the
scope of any of the counts. Dr. Stice wrote, "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.) We
have no difficulty accepting that "Jose" refers to co-inventor
Cibelli, or that "NT" is an abbreviation for "nuclear transfer."
-21-
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007