Interference No. 103,854
1. Does Wallach claim 3 define the same patentable invention as any other claim
whose designation in the notice declaring the interference as corresponding to the count the
party does not dispute?4
2. Does Wallach claim 6 define the same patentable invention as any other claim
whose designation in the notice declaring the interference as corresponding to the count the
party does not dispute?
3. Does Wallach claim 7 define the same patentable invention as any other claim
whose designation in the notice declaring the interference as corresponding to the count the
party does not dispute?
Upon de novo review of the motion and careful consideration of the arguments and
evidence before us, the motion is DENIED. Our reasons follow.
4 Count 2, the sole count in the interference, reads as follows:
2. A multimer in accordance with Claim 1 of Wallach et al., U.S. Patent
5,478,925
or
A multimer in accordance with Claim 39 of Smith, U.S. Patent Application Ser.
No. 08/406,824
or
A DNA molecule in accordance with Claims 15 or 18 of Smith, U.S. Patent Application
Ser. No. 08/406,824
or
A fusion protein in accordance with Claims 27 and 33 of Smith, U.S. Patent Application
Ser. No. 08/406,824.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007