ELI LIILY & CO. vs. CAMERON et al - Page 1




                                                   The opinion in support of the decision                                                
                                           being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.                                    
                                                                                               Paper No. 208                            
                Filed by:  Trial Section Merits Panel                                                                                    
                       Box Interference                                        Filed: September 17, 2002                                
                Washington, D.C.  20231                                                                                                  
                Tel:  703-308-9797                                                                                                       
                Fax:  703-305-0942                                                                                                       

                                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                             
                                                                                                                                        
                                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                              
                                                      AND INTERFERENCES                                                                  
                                                                                                                                        
                                                   ELI LILLY AND COMPANY                                                                 
                                                   (U.S. Application 08/508,434),                                                        
                                                             Junior Party,                                                               
                                                                   v.                                                                    
                        KIMBERLY O. CAMERON, PAUL DA SILVA-JARDINE, ERIC R. LARSON,                                                      
                                          JAMES R. HAUSKE and ROBERT L. ROSATI                                                           
                                                   (U.S. Application 08/628,605),                                                        
                                                             Senior Party.                                                               
                                                                                                                                        
                                                   Patent Interference No. 104,101                                                       
                                                                                                                                        
                Before:  SCHAFER, GARDINER-LANE and TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                               
                TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                    
                                              FINAL JUDGMENT ON PRIORITY                                                                 
                        This interference is before a merits panel for a decision on priority.  The parties were                         
                provided an opportunity to present arguments at a final hearing.  The parties, however, indicated                        
                that while they were available for such a hearing, they did not require one.                                             





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007