Interference 103,482
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of Miya and Klouras; and (4) Claims 1-3 and 5-7 of
Ewen’s U.S. 5,036,034 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite in defining R” as “a
structural bridge imparting stereorigidity to the compound”
(Paper No. 14, p. 1).
L. May 11, 1995 -- Dolle filed a § 1.633(c) Motion To
Redefine Interfering Subject Matter (Paper No. 15). Dolle
moved pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(1) to substitute Proposed
Count 2 or, in the alternative, Proposed Count 3 for original
Count 1
of the interference (Paper No. 15, p. 1 and attachments
thereto).
Dolle also moved pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(2) to enter its
amendment to Claims 4, 16, 19 and 23 of Application
08/147,006, filed November 1, 1993, enter Claims 27-30
therein, and designate Claims 27-30 as corresponding to
original Count 1 or proposed Count 2 or 3 (Paper No. 15, p. 1
and attachments thereto).
M. May 11, 1995 -- Dolle filed a § 1.633(f) Motion
(Paper No. 13). Dolle moved to be accorded (1) benefit of the
August 10, 1992, filing date of U.S. continuing Application
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007