throbber
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
`
`The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
`publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 57 V
`
`MAILED
`
`AUG I 3 1993
`
`PAT.&T.M. OFFICE
`BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFEPIENCES
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`SHMUEL CABILLY, HERBERT L. HEYNEKER,
`‘WILLIAM E. HOLMES, ARTHUR D. RIGGS
`and RONALD B. WETZEL
`Junior party‘
`
`V.
`
`MICHAEL A. BOSS, JOHN H. KENTEN,
`JOHN S. EMTAGE and CLIVE R. WOOD
`Senior party?
`
`Patent Interference No. 102,572
`
`
`
`‘ Application 08/205,419, filed June 10, 1988. According benefit of Application
`06/483,457, filed April 8, 1983, now patent No. 4,816,567, issued March 28, 1989.
`Assignee for Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, A California Corporation.
`
`2 Application 06/672,265, filed November 14, 1984, now Patent No. 4,816,397,
`issued March 28, 1989. Accorded benefit of PCT application, PCT/GB84/00094, filed
`March 23, 1984 and UK application No. 83/08235, filed March 25, 1983. Assignee for
`Celltech Limited, Berkshire SL1 4DY, U.K., A British Company.
`
`1
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 959
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`Before RONALD H. SMITH, DOWNEY and SCHAFER,3 Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DOWNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL DECISION
`
`The interference concerns a two step process for producing either an
`
`immunoglobulin (lg) molecule or an immunologically functional lg fragment comprising
`
`at least the variable domains of the lg heavy and light chains in a single host cell.
`
`The subject matter at issue is defined by a single count, which count is identical
`
`to claim 1 of the Boss et al. patent. The count reads as follows:
`
`Qount 1
`
`A process for producing an lg molecule or an immunologically functional
`lg fragment comprising at least the variable domains of the lg heavy and
`light chains, in a single host cell, comprising the steps of:
`
`(i) transforming said single host cell with a first DNA sequence encoding
`at least the variable domain of the lg heavy chain and a second DNA
`sequence encoding at least the variable domain of the lg light chain, and
`
`(ii) independently expressing said first DNA sequence and said second
`DNA sequence so that said lg heavy and light chains are produced as
`separate molecules in said transformed single host cell.
`
`Boss et al. claims 1-18 and Cabilly et al. claims 101-120 correspond to the count.
`
`During the preliminary motion stage of this proceeding, the administrative patent
`.___._________._____
`
`3 APJ Schafer has been substituted for APJ Pellman who has retired.
`Bose, 772 F.2d 866, 868-869, 227 USPQ 1, 2-4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`2
`
`In re
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 960
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`judge (APJ), granted the Boss et al. motion for benefit of the March 25, 1983 and March
`
`23, 1984, filing dates of their United Kingdom application, No. 83/08235 and PCT
`
`application, PCT/GB84/00094, respectively. With the granting of the motion for benefit,
`
`party Boss et al. became senior party in this interference.
`
`Boss et al. took no testimony and thus stand on their March 25, 1983,
`
`filing date
`
`accorded them during the motion period.
`
`Junior party Cabiily et al. raise the following issues in their brief (Brief, page 3):
`
`(1) does the record establish that Cabiily et al. actually reduced to practice the
`
`invention of the count prior to the March 25, 1983, effective filing date accorded Boss et
`
`al., and if not, then,
`
`(2) does the record establish that Cabiily et al. conceived of the invention of the
`
`count prior to the March 25, 1983, filing date accorded Boss et al. and proceeded with
`
`reasonable diligence to either an actual or constructive reduction to practice (April 8,
`
`1983) from a time prior to conception of Boss et al. (March 25, 1983).
`
`In addition, we have before us, a Cabiily et al. motion, pursuant to 37 CFR §
`
`1.635,
`
`to have certain Cabiily et al. pages, 224-231 attached to exhibit 8 and page 993
`
`attached to Exhibit 20, entered into the record (Paper No. 49). The motion stands
`opposed (Paper No. 50); and a reply was filed (Paper No. 51).
`
`The following issues have ggt been raised by the parties:
`
`(1) a question of no interference-in-fact;
`
`3
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 961
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`(2) a question of separate patentability of any clalm(s);
`
`(3)a question of whether Cabilly et al. claims are unpatentable. Boss et al. filed
`
`a motion forjudgment against Cabilly et al. claims during the motion stage, which
`
`motion was denied; Boss et al. do not seek review of this motion at final hearing; and
`
`(4) a question of whether Cabilly et al. rely upon attorney diligence for their
`
`priority case. Cabilly et al. allege priority based on conception coupled with reasonable
`
`diligence to filing of their application. Cabilly et al. could have but did not offer any
`
`evidence relating to attorney diligence in preparing and filing the Cabilly et al. patent
`
`application during the critical period.
`
`Cabilly et al. filed a record (CR) consisting of exhibits 1—20 (CX) 4 and the
`
`declarationsof coinventors: Arthur D. Riggs, Ph.D, (Riggs) and Shmuel Cabilly
`
`(Cabilly), employees of City of Hope; William E. Holmes (Holmes) and Ronald B.
`
`Wetzel, Ph.D., (Wetzel), employees of Genentech, |nc.; and corroborators Paul J.
`
`“ The record and exhibits will be referred to as CR and CX followed by the
`appropriate number.
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 962
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`Carter, Ph.D (Carter)5, Michael B. Mumford (Mumford), L. Jeanne Perry (Perry), Michael
`
`W. Rey (Rey), all employees of Genentech and John E. Shively, Ph.D., (Shively), an
`
`employee of City of Hope. Boss et al. did not cross examine any of the witnesses.
`
`Both parties filed briefs and appeared through counsel at final hearing.
`
`Cabilly et al. motion to correct the record
`
`I.
`
`With their reply brief, Cabilly et al. filed a motion to have entered into the record
`
`certain pages which were referred to and relied upon in various declarations but were
`
`omitted from the record when it was filed and served upon Boss et al. The omission
`
`was first realized when Boss et al. noted, in their brief, that the pages were not in the
`
`Cabilly et al. record.
`
`The motion is gm. in view of the fact that Cabilly et al. referred to CX-8,
`
`pages 224-231 in the Wetzel and Perry declarations and CX-20, page 993 in the
`
`declaration, we find the failure to file these pages with their respective exhibits an
`
`oversight on the part of Cabilly et al.
`
`5 The Carter testimony was submitted in response to the Boss et al.
`motion for judgment; as noted the motion is not being reviewed at final hearing and thus
`the Carter testimony is not relevant to the issues before us and has not
`been considered in rendering this decision.
`
`5
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 963
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`The Boss et al. arguments are without merit.
`
`It is true that the present rules do
`
`not require Boss et al. to notify Cabilly et al. of the oversight. As a matter of courtesy,
`
`Boss et al. could have notified Cabilly et al. of the omission when the exhibits were
`
`served. We find no prejudice to Boss et al. by entering the omitted exhibits into the
`
`record.
`
`Background:
`
`lmmunoglobulins (lg), also called antibodies, are protein molecules produced in
`
`vertebrates by B cells in response to foreign antigenic agents. (Boss et al. patent,
`
`column 1, lines 60-64, Cabilly et al. specification, page 1). The basic structure of all
`immunoglobulin molecules is a unit consisting of two identical light (L) polypeptide
`
`chains of molecular weight of approximately 23,000 daltons and two identical heavy (H)
`
`polypeptide chains of molecular weight 53,000-70,000 daltons, shaped to form a Y:
`
`
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 964
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`Each H and L chain is held together by disulfide bonds to form a monomer, and the two ‘
`
`monomers are linked by disulfide bonds to form the basic dimeric structure of the
`
`molecule (Cabilly et al. specification, page 5). There are five classes or types of H
`
`chains, gamma, mu, alpha, delta, or epsilon which characterize an individual lg as an
`
`lgG, lgM, lgA, lgD or lgE, respectively; and two classes of chains, kappa (K) and
`
`lambda (A) (Cabilly et al. specification, page 5). Each antibody chain contains a
`
`variable region (V) and a constant region. The variable region is about 100 amino acids
`
`in length and is specific for the antigen which elicited it.
`
`(Cabilly et al. specification,
`
`page 6). The constant region does not take part in the binding of any antigenic
`
`determinant but does serve to link the antibody to other participants in the immune
`
`defenses, e.g. to fix complement, and thus makes an antibody bifunctional. The
`
`variable region of the H and L chain interact closely and when correctly folded form a
`
`three dimensional site at each branch of the Y for binding to a particular portion or
`
`epitope of the specific antigen which elicited the antibody(Cabi|ly et al. specification,
`
`page 5-6, and Boss et al. patent, column 1, line 60—column 2, line 47).
`
`Kohler and Milstein developed a technique that made it possible to produce
`
`monoclonal antibodies, i.e., homogenous antibodies of a single class and single,
`
`specificity, by the use of hybridoma technology. Monoclonal antibodies are produced in
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 965
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`a laboratory by a hybridoma cell line, created by injecting the mouse with antigen,
`
`harvesting its spleen cells and fusing the same with cells from an immortal cancer cell
`line. Monoclonal antibodies are specific to one antigen which may have multiple I
`
`determinants or epitopes. Antibodies have the ability to detect and bind to antigens.
`The strength of the antibody-antigen binding is referred to as specificity and is
`
`quantatively measured by an affinity value.
`
`III.
`
`THE COUNT
`
`It is well-settled that, absent ambiguity, a count in an interference is to be given
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation that the language of the count permits without
`
`resort to either party's disclosure. DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322, 226
`
`USPQ 758, 761 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Fontiin v. Okamoto, 518 F.2d 610, 618, 186 USPQ
`
`97, 103-104 (CCPA 1975); Lamont v. Berguer, 7 USPQ2d 1580, 1582 (Bd. Pat. App.
`
`& Int. 1988). We find the count is clear and unambiguous.
`
`Accordingly, we construe the count as being directed to a two step process for
`
`the production of either an lg molecule or an immunologically functional lg fragment
`
`encoding at least the variable domains of the lg heavy and light chains. The firststep
`
`comprises transforming a single host cell (e.g., E.COIi) with first and second DNA
`
`sequences encoding at least the variable regions of both the heavy chain and light
`
`chain and the second step comprises expressing, in the transformed host cell, the
`
`8
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 966
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`respective heavy and light chains as separate molecules.
`
`The count is broad enough to include adding a single plasmid or vector
`
`containing both the DNA sequences encoding for at least the variable regions of the
`
`heavy and light chains to the host cell or by adding two plasmids to the host cell each
`
`containing said DNA sequences individually. The count does not require that the
`
`expression step directly result in the production in the host cell of an lg molecule or an
`
`immunological functional fragment of lg containing at least the variable regions of the
`heavy and light chains.
`if the process results in the production of inclusion bodies,‘‘
`
`then in order to show that a useful product was produced it would be necessary to
`
`reassociate or refold after extraction of the inclusion bodies and denaturing its contents.
`
`Hence, while the count does not set forth any additional steps it is clear that the count
`
`does not exclude other process steps because the count utilizes the open-ended term
`
`A “comprising “. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-687, 210 USPQ 795, 802-803 (CCPA
`
`1931).
`
`IV.
`
`THE PARTIES BRIEFS
`
`The requirements for the parties briefs are set forth in 37 CFR § 1.656(b).
`
`in
`
`.__.___:___:g_—____.
`
`6 inclusion bodies are also known as refractile bodies. They are insoluble
`particles which require cell lysis and solubilization in denaturant to permit recovery.
`(Cabilly et al. specification, page 23, lines 18-21).
`9
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 967
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`particular, 37 CFR § 1.656(b)(4) requires:
`
`
`|a|n argument, which may be preceded by a summary, which shall contain
`the contentions of the party with respect to the issues to be decided, and
`the reasons therefor, with citations to the cases, statutes, other
`authorities, and part of the record relied on. (Emphasis added)
`
`Conclusions of fact and law made without appropriate citation to the record or citation of
`
`authority will be taken as attorney argument. Compare Ex parte McCullough, 7
`
`USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988); Ex parte Myer, 6 USPQ2d 1966, 1968
`
`(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988); In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859, 863-864, 146 USPQ 284, 286
`
`(CCPA 1965). Attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the
`
`record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ2d 17, 22 (CCPA), cert.
`
`denied, 434 U.S. 854 (1977).
`
`V.
`
`The Cabilly et al. Case for Priority (as set forth in their brief):
`
`(1) Coinventor Riggs testified that during the period of July 1980 through
`
`September 1980 he was at Genentech on sabbatical from City of Hope.
`
`It was his
`
`intention to explore the possibility of producing antibodies in bacteria. According to
`
`Riggs, after returning to City of Hope, he submitted a proposal (CX—2)
`
`to Genentech
`
`on October 5, 1981, which was based in part on conversations he had with Dr.
`
`10
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 968
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`Heyneker7 and Cabilly. Riggs contended that he proposed the use of a single bacterial
`
`strain for coexpression of the heavy and light chain genes. Riggs, 11 3. Riggs stated
`
`that he discussed this project with Shively who was involved in the study of human anti-
`
`CEA3 antibodies and that he requested and received from Shively, on
`
`or about February, 1981, a mouse hybridoma cell line, CEA.66-E3, said to express
`
`anti—CEA antibodies. Riggs,
`
`1111 3-5 (CR-15-16).
`
`(2) Shively testified that he had conversations with Riggs regarding the project
`
`and that upon request from Riggs he supplied Riggs with the cells requested on or
`
`about February, 1981. Shively, 11 5 (CR—17).
`
`(3) Cabilly, a post doctoral fellow in Riggs‘ laboratory at City of Hope, testified
`that in September 1981, he received CEA.66-E3 cells from Shively and that he used
`
`these cells to extract total RNA. The polyA mRNA was purified from the total RNA by
`
`using an oligo-dT cellulose column. Following the isolation of the mRNA, Cabilly
`
`testified that he gave a sample of it to Holmes at Genentech for the preparation of an E.
`
`coli colony cDNA library. Cabilly 11 4~(CR-39).
`
`(4) Coinventor Holmes testified that on July 12, 1982 he began working on the
`
`7 Dr. Herbert Heyneker. a coinventor of the Cabilly et al. application, is said to be
`a senior scientist from Genentech; he did not testify in this proceeding.
`
`8 Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is an antigen unique to humans and is found
`mainly in intestinal tumors. (CX-2, page 2).
`
`11
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 969
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`project to express antibodies directed against human CEA in E. coli. Holmes, ‘[1 3.
`Holmes testified that he received a sample of polyA mRNA from City of Hope and
`
`prepared cDNA which was incorporated into plasmids to make a E. coli colony library.
`
`Holmes, 11 4. He testified that he inoculatedicolonies into microliter plates and the
`
`cultures therefrom were stamped onto agar plates and allowed to grow. Holmes, 1l 5
`
`(CR-29).
`
`(5) Rey, a research assistant at Genentech reporting to Heyneker, testified that
`
`he began work on the project in July 1982 when he received microliter dishes with
`
`cultures containing cDNA from the hybridoma cell line CEA.66-E3. He transferred
`
`these cultures to agar plates and allowed them to grow and later transferred the
`
`colonies to nitrocellulose filters, layered them onto agar plates and allowed them to
`
`grow. Once grown. he lysed the colonies on the filters and treated them for subsequent
`
`probing. Rey, 11 3 (CR-33).
`
`(6) Holmes used oligonucleotides from the Organic Chemistry Department at
`
`Genentech to prepare light and heavy chain oligonucleotide probes to hybridize with the
`
`filters. After exposure to X-ray film, he picked several colonies which hybridized to the
`
`light or heavy chain oligonucleotide probes, characterized the colonies by Pst
`
`restriction endonuclease digestion9 and fractionation by [sodium dodecylsulfate(S‘DS)]
` _:_:__.:
`
`9 Restriction digestion is a process involving the use of enzymes which recognize
`different DNA sequences and cleave the DNA backbone at the site recognized forming
`either blunt or stick ends.
`
`12
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 970
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`polyacrylamide [gel] electrophoresis (PAGE)‘°. Several colonies which hybridized to
`
`the heavy chain probe were also digested with both Pstl and Ncol and analyzed by
`PAGE. Holmes subcloned these DNA sequences into M13 vectors. Holmes, 11 6,11 7
`
`(CR—30).
`
`(7) Rey testified that he assisted in the sequencing of the heavy chain cDNA by
`
`subcloning DNA into M13 vectors, preparing single-stranded template and carrying out
`
`the sequencing reactions. Rey also testified that he assisted in the sequencing of the
`
`heavy and light chain cDNA's. Rey, ‘II 4 (CR-33).
`
`(8) Holmes testified that he and Heyneker analyzed the sequences and found
`
`that the entire coding region of the light chain was found in the cDNA insert of pK17G4
`
`and that portions of the nucleotide sequence of the heavy chain were found in two
`
`isolated plasmids: pGamma298 and pGamma11. Holmes, ‘[1 7.
`
`(9) Holmes indicated that the plasmid, pKCEA|nt 2, for direct expression of the
`
`anti-CEA light chain gene was prepared from five DNA fragments, 1-5. According to
`
`Holmes, fragment 1 was prepared by digesting pHGH207-1* with EcoRl, filling in“ and
`
`digesting with BamHI. Following purification of this fragment, Holmes stated that he
`
`‘O ASDS-PAGE stands for sodium dodecylsuIfate-polyacrylamide gel
`electrophoresis which is a techniquewhich separates various species of proteins or
`polynucleotides of different sizes in an electric field.
`
`" The Cabilly et al. brief (page 11)al|eges that the “filling in" was done with DNA
`polymerase I large fragment . No one testified as to how the filling in was done.
`‘Meitzner, 549 F.2d at 782, 193 USPQ at 22.
`
`13
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 971
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`treated the DNA with bacterial alkaline phosphatase (BAP). The large fragment
`
`(fragment 1) was purified by PAGE. Holmes, 11 8 (CR-30). For fragment 2, Holmes
`
`testified that he digested pK17G4 DNA with Pstl, purified the fragment by PAGE, 1
`
`digested with Avall and isolated the 333 bp‘Pst|-Avall fragment by PAGE; he used the
`
`Pstl-Avall fragment and an oligonucleotide primer in a primer repair reaction to
`
`introduce the initiation codon to the light chain gene. Following the primer repair, Rey
`
`sequenced a Pstl to Avall DNA fragment of the light chain. Rey, 11 5 (CR-34). Holmes
`
`indicated that he and Heyneker analyzed the sequencing results . Holmes, 11 9 (CR-30).
`
`The fragment was purified by PAGE, cleaved with Sau3A and the 182 bp fragment
`
`isolated by PAGE (fragment 2). Holmes, 11 9 . Thereafter, fragments 1 and 2 were
`
`ligated together and the ligation reaction transformed into E. coli. The resultant
`
`transformants were analyzed by restriction digestion and sequencing to confirm the
`
`construction of pKCEAlnt1.” Holmes, 11 10. To prepare fragment 3, Holmes testified
`
`that he digested pK17G4 DNA with Pstl and purified the fragment by PAGE. This
`
`fragment was partially digested with Avall, filled in and purified by PAGE. This
`
`fragment was subsequently digested with Hpall and the 497 bp fragment isolated by
`
`PAGE (fragment3). Holmes, 11 11 (CR-31). For fragment 4, Holmes testified that he
`
`digested‘ the plasmid pKCEAlnt1 with Aval, filled in and digested with Xbal. The large
`
`
`'2 The Cabilly et al. brief (page 11, first paragraph) alleges that this analysis and
`isolation of pKCEAlnt1 was done on or about October 30, 1982. No one testified as to
`this date.
`i_d.
`
`14
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 972
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`fragment was treated with BAP and isolated by PAGE (fragment 4). Holmes, 11 12. The
`small fragment was digested with Hpall and the 169 bp fragment isolated by PAGE
`(fragment 5). Ho|mes,‘11 12 (CR-31). Fragments 3, 4 and 5 were ligated and the
`
`ligation reaction transformed into E.coIi. Resultant transformants were analyzed by
`
`restriction digestion to confirm the construction of pKCEAlnt2. Holmes, 11 13 (CR-31).
`
`(10) Cabilly testified that he modified plasmid pKCEAtrp207—1* by cleaving out
`
`the Pstl-Pvul fragment from the ampicillin resistance gene, filling it in and relegating the
`
`blunt ends to yield plasmid pKCEAtrp207-1*delta which is resistant to tetracycline but
`
`sensitive to ampicillin. Cabilly 11 5 (CR-39).
`
`(11) According to Holmes, six fragments, A-F, had to be isolated to make the
`
`heavy chain expression plasmid, pGammaCEAlnt2. To make the first fragment,
`
`Holmes digested pHGH207-1* with Aval, filled in, digested with BamHI, treated with
`
`BAP and purified the large fragment by PAGE (fragment A). Holmes, 11 14. He digested
`
`pGamma11 with Pstl, the fragment was purified by PAGE, digested with Avall, filled in,
`
`and digested with Taql. The 375 bp fragment was isolated by PAGE (fragment B).
`Holmes, 11 15. He digested pGamma298 with Taql, BamHI, and isolated the 496 bp
`
`fragment by PAGE (fragment C). Holmes, 11 16. Holmes ligated fragments A, B and C
`
`and transformed the ligation reaction into E. coli. The resultant transformants were
`
`analyzed by restriction digestion to confirm the construction of pGammaCEAlnt1.
`
`Holmes, 1117 (CR-31). Holmes used a 15 nucleotide DNA primer in a primer repair
`
`15
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 973
`
`

`
`lnterference No. 102,572
`
`reaction to introduce the initiation codon into an Alul to Rsal fragment of pGamma 298
`
`(fragment D). Holmes, 1) 18 (CR—31). He digested pGamma298 with Pstl, BamHl,
`
`Hpall and purified the fragment by PAGE (Fragment E). Holmes, 1] 18 (CR-31). He
`
`digested pGammaCEA|nt1 with EcoRl, filled in, and digested with BamHl. The then
`
`treated this fragment with BAP and purified the fragment by PAGE (Fragment F).
`
`Holmes, 1] 18. He then ligated fragments D, E and F and transformed the ligation
`
`reaction into E. coli. The plasmid, pGammaCEA|nt2 was said to be confirmed by
`
`restriction analysis and sequencing. Holmes, ‘ll 18 (CR-31).
`
`(12) Holmes stated that he prepared the expression plasmid
`
`pGammaCEAtrp207—1* when he digested plasmid pBR322(Xap) with EcoR|, filled in,
`
`digested with Pstl, and purified by PAGE. He isolated a 1543 bp fragment by treating
`
`pGammaCEA|nt2 with Pstl followed by BamHl and purification by PAGE. He also
`
`isolated a 869 bp fragment from pGammaCEA|nt2 by digestion with Aval, filling in,
`
`cleaving with BamHl and subsequent PAGE purification. He then ligated these
`
`fragments, transformed the ligation reaction into E. coli and analyzed the resultant
`
`colonies by restriction analysis to confirm pGammaCEAtrp207—1*.” Holmes, 1] 19
`
`(CR-31-32).
`
`(13) Accordingly to Cabilly hetransformed competent E. coli cells with
`
`13 The Cabilly et al. brief (page 13) argues that this work was done by December
`8, 1982. This argument is also not supported by any testimony. Q.
`
`16
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 974
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`pK§)EAtrp207—1*de|ta and retransformed the successful E.coIi cells with
`
`pGammaCEAlnt2 which confers resistance to ampicillin but not to tetracycline.
`Cabilly,1[6 (CR—39-40). V He grew the cotransformed cells in minimal media containing
`
`ampicillin and tetracycline and induced the cultures with indoleacrylic acid (IAA) to
`
`make refractile body preparations. Cabilly testified that he gave a sample to Jeanne
`
`Perry for SDS-PAGE analysis. Cabilly indicated that he analyzed several samples by
`
`SDS-PAGE; subsequently these were silver stained or subjected to Western blot using
`
`anti—mouse IgG for the identification of light and heavy chain protein.” Cabilly, ‘ll 7 (CR-
`
`40).
`
`(14) Perry indicated that the first sample she analyzed from a "cotransformed
`
`refractile body preparation" was supplied to her by Cabilly. She analyzed this sample
`
`by PAGE. Perry, 11 12 (CR-26).
`
`(15) Cabilly testified that he also constructed pGammaCEAFABtrp207-1*, a
`
`plasmid vector for the direct expression of the FAB fragment of the heavy chain gene.
`
`(CR-40). Accordingly to Cabilly, he digested pBR322 with Hindlll, filled in, digested
`
`with Pstl and treated with BAP. He isolated the vector fragment by PAGE (fragment l).
`
`Cabilly, ‘ii 9. Cabilly indicates that he received a sample of pGammaCEAtrp207-1* from
`
`Ho|mes,‘he digested this plasmid with BamHI and Pstl and isolated the fragmentby
`
`“‘ The Cabilly et al. brief (page 14, sec. 4) alleges that the Western Blot used
`rabbit anti—mouse primary antibodies and ‘—2§|-labeled protein A. This is attorney
`argument. id.
`
`17
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 975
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`P'AGE (fragment ll). Another sample of this plasmid was digested with Ncol and Ndel.
`
`he isolated the 260 bpbDNA by PAGE. He used a 13 bp oligonucleotide primer in a
`
`primer repair reaction" in order to introduce a termination codon. The fragment was then
`
`digested with BamHI, the 179 bp fragment isolated by PAGE, filled in (fragment Ill).
`
`Fragments I,
`
`II and ill were ligated and transformed into E. coli. Cabilly, 1] 9. These
`
`transformants were said to be analyzed by Rey, Holmes and Cabilly by restriction
`
`cleavage analysis and sequencing.” Cabilly, 11 9, Holmes, 11 20 and Rey, 11 7 (CR—40-
`
`41).
`
`(16) Cabilly testified that he conducted a refolding experiment with the material
`
`from the cotransformed heavy and light chain E. coli cells. He grew the
`
`cotransformants, lysed them by sonication, solubilized the pellet with guanidine
`
`hydrochloride and incubated this material overnight at room temperature. He then,
`
`dialyzed the reaction mixture against urea buffer at room temperature followed by
`
`dialysis into phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Cabilly testified that he performed an
`
`assay to detect active anti-CEA antibody. He indicated that he found the heavy chain
`
`and light chain protein had recombined to yield antigen binding activity significantly
`
`higher than background. Cabilly, 11
`
`(CR-40).
`
`(17) Mumford, an employee of Genentech, was responsible for microbial
`
`‘5 The Cabilly et al. brief (page 14) alleges that this analysis was performed on
`or about January 22, 1983. No one testified as to this date for the analysis. id.
`
`18
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 976
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`fermentation optimization of gene products. Mumford, 11 2 (CR-35) . The record shows
`
`that on three occasions between December 13, 1982 to March 25, 1983, he or
`someone in his lab received and recorded receipt of labeled microbial samples.
`Mumford, 1111 5-7 (CFt—36). Of specific interest is the receipt on February 2, 1983 of
`
`W3110/p102 and W311O/p62 from Heyneker's laboratory. Mumford, 1] 7. Mumford
`recorded:
`
`[T]hese two organisms are E. coli strains, which had been co-transformed
`with two plasmids for the co-expression of heavy and light chain of an
`anti—CEA antibody. These samples were used to prepare the DMSO
`stocks 1246-31 and 1246-32, respectively.
`(11 7) (CR—36)
`
`(18) Fermentations were run on these two stock solutions.” Thereafter, on
`
`February 14, 1983, Mumford recorded the fermentations in CX-18. Mumford, ‘ll 13
`
`(CR-38).
`
`(19) Coinventor Wetzel, a senior scientist at Genentech, testified that he had
`
`some success in folding other recombinant proteins and his help was enlisted on the
`
`project. Wetzel, 11 5 (CR 19-20). He and Perry, a research associate in his lab, began
`
`working on the project in January, 1983. Wetzel, 1] 6 (CR-20) , and Perry, 11 2
`
`(CR-21-22 ).
`
`Initially they attempted to isolate and purify the heavy and light chains
`
`producedpln two different E. coli strains from cell pastes received by Mumford. Wetzel,
`
`$17 (CR-20).
`
`
`‘6 The Cabilly et al. brief (page 16) alleges that the fermentations occurred on
`Feb. 8, 1983. Rey did not give any specific run dates for these fermentations.
`lg.
`19
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 977
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`(20) Perry” testified that their strategy to refold the heavy and light chains from
`
`singly transformed bacteria was to first purify the refractile bodies from the bacteria,
`
`soiubiiize the protein in denaturant, followed by sulfitolysis. The chains would then be
`further purified by S3(lO gel filtration chromatography and possibly DEAE ion—exchange
`
`chromatography. The plan was to then reconstitute the antibodies by folding the heavy
`
`chain first, adding it to the light chain, allowing both chains to fold together and then
`
`oxidize the disulfide bonds. Perry, 1[ 3 (CR-22). She testified that they tried this
`
`strategy and found a loss of heavy chain protein after the removal of the denaturant by
`
`dialysis into native buffer.
`
`In order to alleviate proteolysis, they tried adding PMSF,
`
`EDTA, EGTA, and altering pH and temperature. Protease was found to be inactivated
`
`by addition of PMSF, Perry, 11 7 (CR-23-24), and protease could be removed by DEAE
`
`ion exchange chromatography. Perry, 11 8 (CR-24).
`
`(21) The strategy to reconstitute immunoglobulin chains also included the
`
`comparison of the refolding results of heavy and light chains from the anti—CEA
`
`antibodies produced from hybridoma cells. Perry, 1] 10. The antibodies were said to be
`
`supplied by Cabilly. Optimal conditions were determined and used.” Perry, 1] 10.
`
`(22) Perry stated that later they found that they could isolate the heavy and light
`
`‘7 Other than referring to January, 1983, Perry, in her testimony, does not set
`forth any date for the work she did or observed.
`
`‘8 The Cabilly et al. brief (page 19, last 5 lines-page 20, line 1) lists a number of
`conditions not identified by Perry in her testimony. Q.
`
`20
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 978
`
`

`
`interference No. 102,572
`
`chains from both single and cotransformed bacteria by guanidine solubilization of
`refractile body preparations without any further purification by column chromatography.
`
`These samples could then be used directly in the refolding reactions. The final
`
`conditions involved a mixture of sulfitolized‘ heavy chain and an extract of light chain
`
`cells. The chains were reconstituted using the same conditions as the optimal
`
`conditions for the reconstitution of antibody chains produced in hybridoma cells. Perry,
`
`‘ll 11 (CR-26).
`
`(23) Wetzel testified that he recorded in his notebook the results of a Western
`
`blot of SDS-PAGE run by Perry. He testified that from the blot they noted production of
`
`heavy and light chain protein product in the co-transformed E.coIi cells and that they
`
`were able to estimate the level of expression (%) from cell paste from Mumford. Wetzel
`
`testified that the results were used to calculate the theoretical maximum possible yield
`
`which were in turn used to calculate % yield. Wetzel, 1] 9 (CR-25).
`
`(24) Perry testified that she performed a refolding experiment on the
`
`cotransformed cell paste received from Mumford. The paste was sonicated and
`
`centrifuged to isolate the refractile bodies. Perry analyzed the refractile body
`
`preparations by SDS-PAGE. The sample was resuspended in urea, dialyzed, and then
`
`assayed-. Later Perry analyzed another reconstitution experiment from denaturant
`
`solubilized refractile body preparations of cotransformed cells. Perry found that the
`
`heavy and light chains were insoluble, and that dialysis into urea was necessary to
`
`21
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, p
`
`Genzyme Ex. 1044, pg 979
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,572
`
`obtain activity. She stated “[T]he reconstitution of cotransformed cell extracts utilizing
`
`the optimal conditions for the reconstitution of hybridoma cell produced antibody chains
`was significantly higher than the background". Perry, 11 13 (CR26-27).
`
`(25) Wetzel testified that he and Perry , between March 18, and March 24, 1983,
`
`performed an experiment in which C

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket