Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
count 4. There is no explanation, by one skilled in the art, of
the significance of the entries in Dr. Cibelli's notebooks
relating to actual reduction to practice. Even counsel for Stice
appear to have been confused about when critical events occurred.
Review of the notebook page for "8/30/96" shows no reference to
any "pregnancies from 7/30/96," as alleged by Stice. (Paper 115
at 20.) In response to Campbell's Opposition (Paper 104
at 30–31), Stice admitted, "Dr. Cibelli did not always record
everything in his notebook, as evidenced by the lack of an entry
for July 30, 1996, despite a reference to activities on that date
in the August 30, 1996 entry." (Paper 106 at 20.) In Stice's
demonstrative exhibit presented at oral argument, however, the
summary for August 30, 1996, refers to "the pregnancies of
July 25, 1996." (Paper 122 at 4.) When questioned about the
discrepancy between Stice's principal brief and its demonstrative
exhibit, counsel for Stice stated that the reference to July 25,
1996 in its brief was a typographical error. (Paper 120 at 16.)
At another point, counsel for Stice also stated, "I have seen
pages where there are three separate experiments, one related to
the count and one related probably to a different project."
(Paper 120 at 24.)
These statements by counsel emphasize the necessity of
testimony by a witness intimately familiar with laboratory
-25-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007