Huang request for reconsideration of the denial of Huang
preliminary motion 1
19. Huang preliminary motion 1 was denied in an
order entered 23 December 1999 (Paper 35).
20. Huang asks for reconsideration of the denial of
its preliminary motion 1. 37 CFR § 1.655(a)(Paper 47).
21. Huang argues that the Prasit claims are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 or 112, 1st paragraph, on
the basis of what is said to be an admission against interest
made by Merck in copending interferences 103,845 ("'845") and
103,873 ("'873").
22. According to Huang, Merck, the real party
interest of Prasit, made an admission that in vitro testing
alone is insufficient to make reliable predictions concerning
in vivo effectiveness in compounds alleged to possess anti-
inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic activity.
23. The following testimony by Merck witnesses
during the '845 and '873 interferences is said to be evidence
of the Merck admission:
(a) the testimony of Dr. Chi-Chung Chan that:
(1) "In vitro inhibition of COX-2 is necessary,
but considered alone, is not sufficient to make
reliable predictions concerning in vivo
effectiveness of compounds and takes no account of
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007