Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
However, although this passage at least discloses that the
nucleus to be transferred is bovine, the other limitations,
particularly the G1-phase of the transferred nucleus, are not
plainly evident from the text.
Stice, in its principal brief, makes no effort to show that
all the limitations required by the count are present in either
sentence recorded by Dr. Stice. Nor did Stice, in its principal
brief, attempt to show that one skilled in the art would have
recognized his statement as a clear idea of an embodiment within
the scope of count 4. The significance of data and other
documentary exhibits must be explained. See, e.g., 37
CFR § 1.671(f) (2003) ("The significance of documentary and other
exhibits identified by a witness in an affidavit or during oral
deposition shall be discussed with particularity by a witness”);
37 CFR § 1.608(b) (2003) (similar requirement for discussion of
the significance of documents); Standing Order §§ 42, 43 (Paper
2) requiring underlying facts be disclosed that form the basis of
expert opinion, and explanations of scientific tests and data).
Stice's statement that "[t]he conception corresponds to the
subject matter of the Counts" is unsupported by any explanation.
When questioned on this point at oral argument, Stice urged that
the G1-phase limitation was met inherently by a nucleus taken
from a culture of propagating cells. (Paper 120 at 11.) The
-22-
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007