And our positio n, Your Honors, is that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading this -- but not just this because there's references to genomewide, large scale, CD44 with a thousand different isoforms that they would understand that what we were talking about is mor e than a hundred probes.
What I was referring to was Your Honors' citation of the case, and I recognize the facts are somewhat different and I'm not trying to equate them in terms of the facts, but to the extent the court was talking about sort of the natural resul t flowing from the operation sought in the prior art, which was the Apotext case, that's really what I was told to lean on, which I think really sort of says, you know, look at what the natural result of doing the experiment with 50 to 100 genes in the con text of what you're being instructed to do by the prior art which is to monitor the alternative splices.
And so what we did is we went and we actually, you know, went out and got Dr. Cantor who's one of the really foremost scientists in the world on splice isoforms and this type of technology and he basically -- and, of course, Dr. Ward had already said this in his deposition, but what he said is a person of ordin ary skill in the art reading Case IPR2014-01093 U.S. Patent 7,955,794 this -- and, again, in response to their argument that, you know, singular is not enough to show identicality.
Figure 2d does not disclose that the sample is attached to a first solid support as required by claim 1, step A. And Dr. Cantor conceded this in his deposition, and the testimony is at Exhibit 2045 at page 272, lines 2 through 17.
And, moreover, if you look at page 22 of the '810 application, it expressly states that all of the exper iments involving hybridization to the bead arrays including imaging and data analysis in this R21 phase will be conducted by Dr. Jian -Bing Fan at Illumina.