Interference No. 103,613
has been found to be belated and inadmissible, supra, and thus not entitled to
consideration.
Finally, we recognize that evidence was presented along with Cochran's opposition
for the sole purpose of showing unexpected results by demonstrating the superiority of a
vaccine containing S-HVT-045 (Cochran specification: pages 20-21) as compared to a vaccine
containing rHVT-MDV (Sondermeijer Declaration: Cochran opposition exhibit 1) .6 That showing
was found to be unpersuasive by the APJ in his Decision on Motions for the reasons
presented in Sondermeijer's reply (Paper No. 34: pages 13-15). Upon review of all the
evidence of record at final hearing, including the deposition testimony of Carla Schrier,
we also agree that Cochran's showing is unconvincing essentially for the reasons presented
in Sondermeijer's reply brief (page 12-23). Since we are in substantial agreement with
Sondermeijer's position on this matter as thoroughly set forth in the reply brief, we
adopt that position as our own.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that all of Cochran's involved claims are
unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)/§ 103.
6 According to the Cochran opposition (page 16), rHVT-MDV contains an insertion of the MDV
glycoprotein within the ORF-2 region of the HVT genome.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007