Interference No. 103,613
to the parameters in question and then lept to the conclusion, without providing any
explanation or proof, that Sondermeijer did not make out a Qrima facie case. It appears,
therefore, that Cochran would have the APJ, or the Board at final hearing, fill in the
gaps and make a case for Cochran. We shall not do so since Cochran, the party in
opposition, is charged with that responsibility.
Similarly, the Cochran brief (page 21) states that Sondermeijer's position is
necessarily based on three premises, i.e., (1) that all five ORF's of the prior art are
equivalent (for purposes of inserting a foreign gene in the HVT genome); (2) that all
sites within a given ORF are also equivalent; and (3) that all foreign DNA can be stably
inserted and expressed in any one of the available sites. Assuming that these premises
reasonably follow from the teachings of the prior art (and we are inclined to agree with
this assumption in view of our discussion of the prior art, supra), then it was incumbent
upon Cochran to refute these premises by the presentation of rebuttal evidence with its
opposition. In this regard, the evidence Cochran would like us to consider, e.g., the
Declaration of Martha Wild, was not presented with Cochran's opposition. Instead, that
evidence
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007