Interference No. 102,572
(2) a question of separate patentability of any claim(s);
(3) a question of whether Cabilly et al. claims are unpatentable. Boss et al. filed a
motion for judgment against Cabilly et al. claims during the motion stage, which motion
was denied; Boss et al. do not seek review of this motion at final hearing; and
(4) a question of whether Cabilly et al. rely upon attorney diligence for their priority
case. Cabilly et al. allege priority based on conception coupled with reasonable diligence
to filing of their application. Cabilly et al. could have but did not offer any evidence relating
to attorney diligence in preparing and filing the Cabilly et al. patent application during the
critical period.
4
Cabilly et al. filed a record (CR) consisting of exhibits 1-20 (CX) and the
declarations of coinventors: Arthur D. Riggs, Ph.D, (Riggs) and Shmuel Cabilly (Cabilly),
employees of City of Hope; William E. Holmes (Holmes) and Ronald B. Wetzel, Ph.D.,
(Wetzel), employees of Genentech, Inc.; and corroborators Paul J.
4The record and exhibits will be referred to as CR and CX followed by the
appropriate number.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007