• By Donald Zuhn

    U.S. Chamber of CommerceIn a letter sent to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce expressed disappointment that the Biden Administration "continues to entertain actions, such as a waiver of the TRIPS Agreement, that would undermine the pandemic response."  The Chamber instead urged the Administration "to double down on efforts to distribute vaccines globally."

    The Chamber sent its letter to the U.S. Trade Representative in advance of the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12), which will take place from November 30 to December 3, 2021 in Geneva, Switzerland (the Ministerial Conference is the top decision making body of the World Trade Organization (WTO)), noting that the MC12 "will be an inflection point for global pandemic response, the rules-based multilateral trading system, and international IP."  In its letter, the Chamber "strongly urge[s]" the Administration at the MC12 "to herald the tremendous success of the U.S. and international innovation ecosystem that continues to produce technological solutions to the technical problems of the COVID-19 pandemic."

    According to the Chamber, "the appropriate solutions to continued effective pandemic response do not include weaker IP," but instead should focus on three objectives:

    1. Return to health: accelerate supplies through safe and effective manufacture and licensing of vaccines and other medical technologies; 2. Return to Growth: ensure we continue to foster innovation (across the board); and 3. Prepare for the ongoing vaccination needs and the next pandemic, especially in least developed economies –- through effective and lasting solutions to national infrastructure for healthcare delivery and remove supply chain and regulatory barriers, not false solutions like IP waivers.

    In its letter, the Chamber contends that "the United States found itself nearly uniquely positioned to provide durable and unprecedented answers to the problems posed by a novel coronavirus" as a result of "the strength of our IP framework and substantial contributions from the public sector, private sector and academic institutions whose work it supports."  The Chamber points out that since the start of the pandemic, COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing has risen to 1.6 billion doses per month, 9.3 billion doses so far in 2021, and a projected 24 billion doses by the end of June 2022, and states that "[t]his explosive growth in global vaccine production confirms that IP was not an impediment to vaccine discovery, development, or production at a scale to serve the world."

    The Chamber's letter argues that:

    [I]n those nations around the world where IP rights and private contracts are adequately protected by law, hundreds of IP licensing partnerships are driving the successful testing and production of both vaccines and therapies to meet the ever-shifting challenges of the pandemic.  Should we move from a cooperative, voluntary licensing arrangements to a compulsory, forced technology transfer environment, it would risk diverting scar[c]e inputs to startup facilities ill-prepared to use them efficiently or quickly.

    In concluding its letter by opposing the Administration's support of a COVID-19-related TRIPS Agreement waiver, the Chamber declares that:

    U.S. support for even a limited cessation of TRIPS standards will have an immediate dampening effect on the ability of the private sector to finance research and development, and a chilling long-term impact on U.S. technological leadership (in biotechnology, green technology, defense and other key sectors), all while providing formal impunity to IP theft by Chinese entities and other serial offenders.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan

    On May 28th, Junior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, "Broad") filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 1 in CRISPR Interference No. 106,126, where ToolGen is the Senior Party.  On August 6th, ToolGen filed its Opposition and on September 24th Broad filed its Reply.

    Broad's Motion sought to substitute the Count; Broad's Proposed Count 2 is shown in comparison to the Count in the interference as declared below:

    Table
    Broad's argument (the consequences of which are discussed below) was that their "best proofs" are better represented in Proposed Count 2, which encompasses dual-molecule guide RNA CRISPR embodiments rather than being limited to single-molecule guide RNA (sgRNA) species.

    ToolGen argued in its Opposition that the Board should deny Broad's motion first, because Broad has neither established nor argued that dual-and single-molecule eukaryotic CRISPR is the same patentable invention, and second, that Broad's proposed Count 2 "does not define the common claimed subject matter [because] all of ToolGen's involved claims are limited to single-molecule RNA" species (emphasis in brief).  As to the first argument, ToolGen contended that there is a distinction to be made between Broad's position that dual- and single-molecule CRISPR embodiments are "alternative approaches" to eukaryotic CRISPR and that they are the same invention, which ToolGen asserted they are.  Presciently, ToolGen argued that "Broad cannot attempt to make that showing for the first time in its reply," citing Nau v. Ohuchida, Int. No. 104,258, 9 Paper 57, at *4 (B.P.A.I. 1999), regarding making the argument that a dual-molecule eukaryotic CRISPR system would be prima facie obvious over single-molecule embodiments, under Spine v. Biedermann Motech GmbH, 684 F. 18 Supp. 2d 68, 89 (D.D.C. 2010).  And in this regard ToolGen argued that Broad had not established that Broad has best proofs that would be best adjudged for priority under Proposed Count 2.

    ToolGen also argued that proposed Count 2 is broader than the common claimed invention between the parties because, as instituted by the Board, existing Count 1 is limited to single-molecule RNA embodiments of eukaryotic CRISPR and that common claimed subject matter is what defines an interference, citing Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Edo Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248–49, and Louis v. Okada, 59 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1073, 2001 WL 775529 at*4 (B.P.A.I. 2001).

    In its Reply, Broad sets forth clearly its strategic focus in making its Preliminary Motion No. 1 and the consequences of the Board granting the motion.  According to Broad's brief:

    Broad's proffered best proofs are—as ToolGen's expert now admits—directed to dual3 molecule RNA work.  These proofs underlie, inter alia, Broad's generic molecule RNA claims at issue in this Interference.  Accordingly, the PTAB should adopt Proposed Count 2, a Count broad enough to include Broad's best proofs.  See Grose v. Plank, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1338, 1341 (B.P.A.I. 1990) (allowing a party to rely on its best proofs of priority "is an accepted reason in interference practice for granting" a motion to modify the count).

    Broad illustrates these "best proofs" by two examples from the record.  The first comes from Inventor Zhang's January 12, 2012 NIH grant application describing this vector to be used in practicing eukaryotic CRISPR:

    Image 1
    (It should be remembered that grant applications, unlike patent applications, are under no burden of showing that a proposed research plan has been used, successfully or otherwise, and that many research proposals describe work to be performed using the monies applied for in the grant.)

    The second example of best proofs also comes from that grant proposal, this one showing the expected products of the vector disclosed in the previous figure:

    Image 2
    Broad's brief argues that under interference practice a party is permitted to move (and the Board can grant such a motion) to change the Count under circumstances where their best proofs are better accommodated by the changed Count.  Many of Broad's arguments intended to counter ToolGen's opposition recite the absence of a rule against substituting the Count in this instance.  For example, Broad argues that:

    The rules do not require a proposed count to be directed to the same patentable invention as the original count.  See Board Rule 41.208(c)(2).  None of the cases cited by ToolGen at 2:6-18 require a showing that the proposed count is the same patentable invention as the original one.  Indeed, the Standing Order, consistent with the cited cases, contradicts ToolGen's position—it does not recite any rule that a proposed count must be directed to the same patentable invention as the original count.  Paper 2 at ¶ 208.

    Broad counters ToolGen's citation of Theeuwes v. Bogentoft, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1378, 1379 (Comm'r Pat. & Trademarks December 11, 1986) for what is required to show that Proposed Count 2 is the same invention by asserting that "claimed generic RNA genus of Proposed Count 2 would be anticipated by the Count 1 species claim limited to single-molecule RNA."  Indeed, the fact that Proposed Count 2 recites CRISPR generically as regards the nature of the guide RNA is the major theme of their Reply, Broad stating that "even if the proposed count needed to be directed to the same patentable invention as the original count, the relevant question would be whether a generic RNA genus is directed to the same invention as the single-molecule RNA species" because "it is"; Broad supports this argument by the Board's designating their generic CRISPR claims as corresponding to Count 1 in the Declaration (which designation ToolGen has adopted in its Opposition to Broad's Preliminary Motion No. 3 to have these claims de-designated).

    The Reply also notes that the manuscript for the scientific paper that was ultimately published as the Le Cong et al. 2013 reference was submitted in October 5, 2012, which antedates (for the purposes of Broad's Motion) the earliest filing date according by the Board to ToolGen in its Interference Declaration, which Broad contends are relevant under Byrn v. Aronhime, Patent Interference 105,384 (McK), Paper 64, at 11:17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 20, 2006).

    Outside these substantive arguments, Broad's brief sets forth its procedural justifications under the Rules and relevant case law that would permit the Board to grant its motion.  And Broad argues that ToolGen is asking the Board to unfairly consider priority to its generic guide RNA-encompassing CRISPR claims in this interference while not permitting its "best proofs" regarding species outside the scope of Interference Count 1.  Finally, the Reply sets forth specific rebuttals to ToolGen's arguments with regard to correspondence between Broad's claims and Proposed Count 2 regarding vector delivery, SaCas9, the use of two or more nuclear localization signals (NLS), and Cas9 fusion to heterologous protein domains.

    The Board's consideration of Broad's Preliminary Motion No. 1 raises an interesting possibility.  If it is indeed the case that eukaryotic CRISPR was only (and could only) be achieved using single guide RNA embodiments (as CVC has argued in this and its pending interference with Broad (No. 106,115); see "CVC Files Motion in Opposition to Broad Priority Motion") then Broad has fashioned a way to provide its "best proofs" with regard to dual-molecule CRISPR embodiments to establish an earlier conception date even though those embodiments would not have satisfied the enablement requirement for the claimed CRISPR methods.  Interestingly, in its priority motion in the '115 interference, Broad asserted an earliest reduction-to-practice date of July 20, 2012 (wherein that embodiment involved the use of sgRNA in eukaryotic CRISPR).  While this may reflect merely a parsimonious approach towards asserting just enough to satisfy what was required to have an earlier priority fate than CVC in that interference, CVC had asserted an earlier conception date (March 2012) that Broad's purported best proofs" would antedate.  While there is nothing untoward about Broad asking the Board to change the Count to accommodate these proofs, it does raise the possibility that the arcane mechanisms of interference practice could result in what can conservatively be called an anomalous result.

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association_2The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a remote program entitled "Patent Valuation: Crystallization or Ambiguity" on November 2, 2021 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm (ET).  Andy Culbert of Perkins Coie LLP will moderate a panel consisting of Rakesh Michael of Uber, Blair Jacobs of McKool Smith, and Ute Kilger of Boehmert & Boehmert.

    The webinar is complimentary for FCBA and EPLAW members and $75 for non-members.  Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.

  • J A KempJ A Kemp will be offering a webinar entitled "IP for Plants and Plant Protection Products in Europe and UK" on November 2, 2021 from 4:00 pm GMT.  Andrew Bentham and Chris Milton of J A Kemp will provide an update on legal developments and practical tips for practitioners active in the agri-tech sector.  The webinar will address the following topics:

    • Patenting plant protection products such as herbicides and pesticides.
    • A recent development concerning data to support inventive step at the EPO for plant protection products.
    • Other considerations when patenting plant protection products.
    • An update on supplementary protection certificates for plant protection products.
    • Regulatory data protection for plant protection products.
    • Patent-eligibility of plants and agricultural microbes under the European Patent Convention — latest case law and unanswered questions.
    • Plant variety rights in the EU and UK.
    • Brexit considerations.

    There is no registration fee for this webinar.  However, those interested in registering for the webinar, should do so here.

  • IPO #2The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Strengthening Your Patent Portfolio to Resist AIA Post-Grant Attacks" on November 2, 2021 from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm (ET).  Ashita Doshi of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Nichole Valeyko of Merck & Co., Ben Searle of HP Inc., and Todd Walters of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC will discuss strategies and practical tips for obtaining patent portfolios that survive post-grant attacks, including a discussion of the following topics:  PTAB statistics, application drafting, claim drafting strategies, prosecution strategies, obtaining a robust portfolio, and knowing when and where to assert your patents.

    The registration fee for the webinar is $150 for non-members or free for IPO members (government and academic rates are available upon request).  Those interested in registering for the webinar can do so here.

  • HGF Limited and Knobbe Martens will be offering a webinar entitled "Challenging Granted Patents: A Comparison between Europe and the US" on November 3, 2021 at 11:00 am (ET).  Adam Hines of HGF and Christy Lea and Sabing Lee of Knobbe Martens will compare and contrast mechanisms for challenging patents in both Europe and the U.S., and in particular, will focus on opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) along with proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the U.S.  The panel will also provide practical tips on how to maximize the chance of success in each jurisdiction.  The webinar will cover:

    • An outline of the European opposition process and PTAB trials process in the U.S. generally, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR)
    • Tactical considerations and approach prior to filing an opposition in Europe or a petition for IPR/PGR in the U.S.
    • Discussion of key differences between European and the U.S. invalidity proceedings
    • Practice updates from Europe, including the use of videoconferencing for oral proceedings and changes to the Rules of Procedure at the Boards of Appeal
    • Practice updates from the U.S., including discretionary denials and the many challenges to the NHK-Fintiv rule, which may block IPRs when co-pending litigation exists
    • Strategy considerations in deciding whether to challenge a U.S. patent versus a European patent

    Those wishing to register can do so here.

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association_2The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a remote program entitled "Competition Law: Shifting Plates? Balance Between Competition and IP" on November 3, 2021 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm (ET).  Sabine Age of Hoyng Rokh Monegier will moderate a panel consisting of Patrick Coyne of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP; Kevin Duan of Han Kun Law; Dina Kallay of Ericsson; Bill MacLeod of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; and Barry Nigro of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.

    The webinar is complimentary for FCBA and EPLAW members and $75 for non-members.  Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.

  • AIPLA #1The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will be offering a webinar entitled "Inequitable Conduct Lives!" on November 3, 2021 from 12:30 pm to 2:00 pm (ET).  William Covey of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, David Hricik of Mercer Law School, and Warren Woessner of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. will provide an overview of the ethical obligations of practice as well as the substantive law of inequitable conduct and related disciplinary matters, including several recent cases finding inequitable conduct despite the barriers created in 2011 by Therasense.  The panel will also provide practical procedures and practices to avoid creating a record that leads to inequitable conduct and for more compact prosecution.

    The registration fee for the program is $99 (AIPLA member rate).  Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association_2The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a remote program entitled "Patent Subject Matter Globally: The US (Section 101) and Other Countries" on November 4, 2021 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm (ET).  Michael P. Sandonato of Venable I Fitzpatrick will moderate a panel consisting of Paul Browning of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP; Nakajima Masaru of Seiwa Patent & Law; Jason Mueller-Neuhaus of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP; and Anne Schön of Hoffmann Eitle.

    The webinar is complimentary for FCBA and EPLAW members and $75 for non-members.  Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan

    The advent of technology making feasible elucidation of whole genomic sequencing over the past 30 years has led to reports of many if not most important or interesting animal genomes (including the most celebrated results of the Human Genome Project) (see, e.g., "Nautilus pompilius Genome Determined"; "Giraffe Genome Reveals Relevant Adaptations"; "Avocado Genome Elucidated; Durum Wheat Genome Revealed"; "Rose Genome Reveals Its Exquisite Complexities"; "Silver Birch Genetics Explained"; "Genomic Sequence of Strawberry Determined"; "Koala Genome Sequenced"; "Tomato Genome Determined"; "Lowland Gorilla Genome Sequenced"), as well as important historical relationships newly appreciated (see, e.g., "Did Neanderthal DNA Persist in Modern Humans as a Defense against Xenobiotic Viruses?"; "Chicken Origins Established (But Philosophical Questions Remain)"; "Genetic Analyses of Sweet Potato Genome Sheds Light on Speciation and Global Dispersion Patterns"; "The Domestication History of Apples Revealed by Genomic Analysis"; "Evidence of Geographic Change in Central America from Genome Studies of Eciton Ant Species"; "Dolphin Genes Show Relationships between Large Brains and Energy Metabolism Similar to Humans and Elephants").

    CatBut what has become evident recently is that most of these genomes were in one way or another incomplete, due typically because there were regions of this or that genome that were resistant to accurate sequencing or come other biologic idiosyncrasy.  The most recent example of this reminder of the complexity of biological organisms is our old friend the domestic cat, which built (as most of the new studies do) on the earlier genomic elucidations.  In this case, the earlier study in question was published in 2014, when an international effort led by Stephen J. O'Brien at the Oceanographic Center, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida reported the complete genomic sequencing of the domestic cat, Felix catus.  The report, entitled "Annotated features of domestic cat – Felis catus genome," was published in GigaScience 2014, 3:13 (August 5, 2014) (see "Domestic Cat Genome Sequenced").  The study reported sequencing of a female Abyssinian cat named Cinnamon, a mixed-breed cat from Russian named Boris, and Sylvester, a wildcat ancestor of domestic cats.  The report showed that domestic cats have retained "a highly conserved ancestral mammal genome organization" in comparison with ancestral cats (see Driscoll et al., 2007, "The near eastern origin of cat domestication," Science 317: 519–23).  Both species, F. catus and Felix silvestris, have 38 chromosomes, 18 pairs of autosomes, and two pairs of dimorphic gender-determining chromosomes.  Details of the domestic cat genome structure included the presence of 217 loci of endogenous retrovirus-like elements (amounting to 55.7% of the entire genome, comprised of long interspersed elements (LINEs), short interspersed elements (SINEs), satellite DNA, retroviral long terminal repeats (LTRs) and "others"); 21,865 protein coding genes (open reading frames or ORFs), detected by comparison with eight mammalian genomes (from human, chimpanzee, macaque, dog, cow, horse, rat, and mouse); and a wealth of genetic variability in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertion/deletion events (indels); novel families of complex tandem repeat elements; and short terminal repeat (STR) loci.

    The report also contained an extensive comparison between domestic cats and other species ("reference genomes") in terms of gene numbers, using genes with the longest mRNA and corresponding coding sequences (click on table to expand).

    Table
    More recently, further results of applications of improved genomic sequencing methods and technologies have provided a more comprehensive elucidation of the feline genome and insights into genetic bases for disease.  A paper published in the Public Library of Science, entitled "A new domestic cat genome assembly based on long sequence reads empowers feline genomic medicine and identifies a novel gene for dwarfism," PLoS Genetics 16(10): e1008926 on October 20, 2020, reported a revisit of the genomic sequence of Cinnamon, an Abyssinian breed domestic cat previously sequenced.  Rather than focusing on one cat, this group* performed whole genome sequencing (WGC) of 54 domestic cats and aligned the sequences to detect single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and structural variants (SVs).  The distribution and relatedness of the cats in this study is shown in this graphic:

    Image 1
    Their aim was to identify the sequence comprising the ~300,000 gaps in the annotated sequence reported to the Cinnamon Abyssinian, to produce a new reference cat genome denoted in relevant databases as Felis_catus_9.0.  This genome comprised 2.84 gigabasepairs (Gb), of which only 1.8% (1.38 megabasepairs, Mb) was not assigned to a specific chromosomal location.  The sequencing and comparison identified 19,748 genes, 376 of which were novel (i.e., had not been identified in Cinnamon's DNA) and 178 genes found in the original annotations but not found here.  (The authors note the presence of 54 diverse individual cats from which the genes were determined as a possible source of this disparity.)  A greater extent of LINE/L1 repetitive elements were detected, which these researchers attributed to better assembly (i.e., the repetitiveness and gaps did not mask these elements in the latest assembly).  The average number of SNVs detected per cat was 9.6 million (for comparison humans have ~5 million); inbred cats showed a lower number (~8 million) while outbred cats showed a higher number (> 10.5 million).  Of these, researchers detected 128,844 synonymous SNVs in protein-coding sequences (i.e., where the two sequence encoded proteins having the same amino acid sequence), 77,662 missense SNVs (wherein the protein encoded differed in amino acid sequence, including truncated sequences and out-of-frame mutants), and 1,179 loss-of-function (LoF) SNVs.  LoF and missense SNVs were associated with depletion in comparisons between orthologous cat and human DNA sequences, whereas synonymous SNVs were enriched by 19.2%.  Statistical analyses found that in cats and humans there was selection against missense and LoF SNVs in genes under selective pressure (i.e., where the genetic changes resulted in phenotypes deleterious to individuals carrying them).  These results further indicated that these classes of SNVs were not distributed randomly in the cat or human genome.

    Turning to structural variants, these researchers detected an average of 44,900 SVs per cat (a frequency four-fold higher than in humans), comprising 134.3 Mb; of the structural variant types, deletions averaged 905 bp, duplications 7,497 bp, insertions 30 bp, and inversions 10,993 bp.  In total they reported 208,135 SVs detected in 54 sequenced cat genomes, with 123,731 (60%) were deletions, approximately 39,955 insertions, 35,427 inversions, and 9,022 duplications were identified.  The majority of these were common across cat breeds, indicating tolerance. 58.15% of these SVs were intergenic in location, 40.22% intronic, and only 1.06% found in exons, "potentially impacting 217 different protein coding genes.  As the scientists noted:

    Conversely, the proportion of some SV types found in certain gene regions varied from their genome-wide averages.  For example, in regions 5 kb upstream and downstream of genes, duplications were increased approximately two-fold.  For exonic regions, 74% of SVs were deletions, an increase from the genome wide level of 59.45%.  For 5' untranslated regions (UTRs), the majority of SVs were inversions, which only represent 17.02% of total SVs.  These results suggest an interaction between the impact of SV types and the potential function of the gene regions they are found in.

    Sixteen of the identified variants were predicted to cause disease, based on comparisons with human genome sequences known to be sufficiently similar.  These included one involving a tumor suppressor gene FBXW7 associated with feline mediastinal lymphoma, prevalent in Siamese cats and Oriental shorthaired cats.  Other variants detected and their related diseases were in the FAM13B gene, resulting in ectodermal dysplasia (in a random-bred cat); the CYFIP2 gene associated with urate stones (Egyptian mau); and the SH3PXD2A gene, associated with feline infectious peritonitis (random bred cat).

    The genetic roots of dwarfish more complicated according to these researchers, involving "a complex deletion coupled with a nearby potential duplication event" on cat chromosome B1, that disrupted the gene for UDP-glucose-6-dehydrogenase (UGDH).  This trait is inherited as an autosomal dominant mutant and a breed-standard for Munchkins, characterized by shortened limbs and anormal torso.  Here, the scientists report that:

    SV analysis within the critical region previously identified by linkage and GWAS on chromosome B1:170,786,914–175,975,857 revealed a 3.3 kb deletion at position chrB1:174,882,897–174,886,198, overlapping the final exon of UDP-glucose 6-dehydrogenase (UGDH).  Upon manual inspection of this SV, a 49 bp segment from exon 8 appeared to be duplicated and inserted 3.5 kb downstream, replacing the deleted sequence.  This potentially duplicated segment was flanked by a 37 bp sequence at the 5`end and a 20 bp sequence at the 3' end, both of unknown origin.

    (This topography is illustrated in the Figure below.)  The scientists further hypothesized that the known activity of the affected gene, UGDH, which is involved in "proteoglycan synthesis in chondrocytes" could effect this phenotype by interfering with development.  Evidence for this mechanism was observed in the epiphyseal plate, which in Munchkins showed "a disorganized columnar arrangement" and proteoglycan depletion.  They report that sequencing the mRNA produced by the mutant UGDH is yet to be reported, which would perhaps shed light on whether the role of this mutation was as they propose it to be.

    Image 2
    This group published a more recent paper in March 2021, entitled "Ultracontinuous Single Haplotype Genome Assemblies for the Domestic Cat (Felis catus) and Asian Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)," in the Journal of Heredity, 112(2): 165–73, providing additional details relating to its analysis of the domestic cat and leopard cat components of the hybrid genome.

    The results reported in these papers illustrated how far we have come and perhaps how far we have to go in using genetic methods for identifying the causes and possible cures for a variety of diseases.

    *Reuben M. Buckley, Brian W. Davis, Wesley A. Brashear, Fabiana H. G. Farias, Kei Kuroki, Tina Graves, LaDeana W. Hillier, Milinn Kremitzki, Gang Li, Rondo P. Middleton, Patrick Minx, Chad Tomlinson, Leslie A. Lyons, William J. Murphy, Wesley C. Warren