Interference 104,746 Paper 123
Stice v. Campbell
I. Introduction
This interference relates to methods for cloning certain
large farm animals, namely cattle, sheep, and pigs, by
transferring the nucleus of a differentiated cell (a fibroblast)
into a prepared oocyte at a specified stage of development. A
merits panel held that junior party Stice was not entitled to a
patent on any of its involved claims, which were claims 1–24 of
its U.S. patent No. 5,945,577. (Paper 80 at 37–40.) The
interference was redeclared with three counts, Counts 4
through 6, based solely on certain surviving claims of senior
party Campbell. (Paper 81 at 3.)
An oral hearing on priority was held in the presence of a
court reporter on 15 November 2005. (See Paper 120, transcript
of oral argument.) Ronald A. Daignault, Esq., argued for Stice.
Kenneth J. Meyers, Esq., accompanied by David J. Earp, Esq.,
argued for Campbell.
II. Findings of fact
The record supports the following findings of fact as well
as any other findings of fact set forth in any other portion of
the decision by at least a preponderance of the evidence.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007