Interference No. 105,182 Paper 77
Lee v. Dryja Page 2
I. Introduction
Interference 105,182 was declared on 22 September 2004 between junior party
WEN-HWA LEE and EVA Y-H.P. LEE (“Lee”) and senior party THADDEUS P. DRYJA,
STEPHEN FRIEND and DAVID W. YANDELL (“Dryja”). Lee is involved in the
interference on the basis of U.S. Patent 5,998,134 (“the ‘134 patent”), issued 7
December 1999, based on U.S. application 08/482,627 (“the ‘627 application”). Dryja is
involved in the interference on the basis of U.S. application 09/387,158 (“the ‘158
application”) filed 31 August 1999. The subject matter of the interference is defined by
one count, i.e., Lee ‘134 patent claim 1 or Dryja ‘627 application claim 22, and is
directed to a method of detecting a mutated retinoblastoma (“RB”) nucleic acid in a
sample by using an isolated cDNA which encodes a full length, wild-type RB protein as
a hybridization probe. Lee ‘134 patent claims 1-4 and Dryja ‘158 application claims 22,
23 and 49 were designated as corresponding to the count. [Paper 1.]
Among the motions filed during the motion phase of the interference was Dryja
revised motion 2. Dryja revised motion 2 sought judgment that Lee ‘134 patent claims
1-4 are barred on the basis of interference estoppel or res judicata because Lee
received an adverse decision in prior interferences 103,426 (“the ‘426 interference”)
and 104,259 (“the ‘259 interference”) (Paper 33). Dryja revised motion 2 was granted
for reasons set forth in the “DECISION - PRELIMINARY MOTIONS - Bd.R. 125(a)”
(Paper 76) issued concurrently with this judgment and is a dispositive motion. As a
result of granting Dryja revised motion 2, Lee no longer has any patentable claims
corresponding to the sole count in the interference. Since Lee no longer has any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007