Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
board considered and rejected this same general argument from
Stice regarding whether the transfer of the nucleus of a
"proliferating cell" was inherently met if the nucleus was
selected from a proliferating cell culture. (Paper 80 at 37–40,
discussion Campbell preliminary motion 3.) As Stice has not come
forward with any new evidence or argument, we reject its
contention that the missing G1 limitation is inherent.
Moreover, Stice has failed to meet the requirement that
inventor testimony regarding conception be corroborated. Kane
stated that "I do hereby affirm the research that is reported on
those pages [SX 2055 and SX 2056] was performed by the
investigators who produced the notebooks. I was given these
books to sign in 1997 as signed, even though the work was done
earlier." (SX 2052 at 1, ¶2.) This statement is insufficient to
establish more than that those pages existed on the date Kane
signed them. Kane's statement that "the research . . . was
performed" begs the questions of exactly what the laboratory
notebook entries indicate Dr. Stice conceived, and how that
conception, whatever it was, relates to the limitations of the
present counts in this interference. Dr. Cibelli's testimony and
laboratory notebooks cannot provide corroboration, as Dr. Cibelli
is a co-inventor. Unlike the case of Jolley, in which inventor
McGraw established by "sufficient circumstantial evidence of an
-23-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007