GRAY et al v. ALTON et al - Page 6




                                                     Preliminary statements                                                         
                       11.     According to the Alton preliminary statement, as to Count 2, the invention was                       
                               first conceived by Alton “at least as early as October 4, 1982" (Paper 49 at 2).                     
                       12.     According to the Gray preliminary statement, as to Count 2, the invention was                        
                               first conceived by Gray “on or about February 25, 1983" (Paper 52 at 2).                             
                                                       The Alton testimony                                                          
                       13.     The affidavit testimony of inventor Dr. Norman K. Alton (Exh. 1)3 has been                           
                               submitted as evidence of Alton’s conception.                                                         
                       14.     According to the parties, the affidavit was submitted in a conflict proceeding in                    
                               Canada concerning a Canadian counterpart patent application of the involved                          
                               Alton applications (Paper 54 at 2).                                                                  
                       15.     The parties have agreed that Dr. Alton would testify as he did in the submitted                      
                               affidavit (Exh.1)4 if called to do so in this interference proceeding. 37 CFR                        
                               § 1.672(h).                                                                                          
                       16.     Dr. Alton’s testimony indicates that:                                                                
                               (a)  The complete coding sequence of human IFN-(, which had been                                     
                                      shown to have anti-viral, anti-tumor, and anti-proliferative activities , was                 



                       3       The parties have submitted several exhibits with the joint motion (Paper 54).  The                   
               exhibit numbering is not in compliance with the Standing Order  (Paper 2 at § 39) and is                             
               confusing (e.g., there is more than one “exhibit 1").  We understand that part of the difficulty is                  
               that the affidavit exhibits presented by the parties were not prepared in preparation for this                       
               interference.                                                                                                        
                       4       The parties have submitted more than one exhibit that is labeled as “Exhibit 1".                     
               Whenever we refer to exhibit 1, we are referring to Dr. Alton’s affidavit.                                           
                                                                     6                                                              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007