Interference No. 103,056
evidence presented by the parties, Dean had met his burden of proving that those
claims were not drawn to the same patentable invention” (page 6 of petition decision).
We have reviewed our decision in light of the Parker et al. arguments and the
Commissioner’s direction and are persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended
that the burden was upon Dean et al., in the first instance, to establish that they were
entitled to the relief they requested. Hence, reconsideration of the final decision of
August 20, 1998 is granted.
The subject matter of this interference is directed to a bifunctional chelating
agent useful as a radiodiagnostic or radiotherapeutic agent. The agent is referred to as
bifunctional because it joins both an antibody or antibody fragment and a metallic
radionucleotide. The agent consists of a derivative of l,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-
1,4,5-triacetic acid or 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,5,10 tetraacetic acid agent
(also referred to as a macrocycle), an organic linking radical, L, and a group, E, a group
capable of reacting with a site on a protein, where the L-E group is attached either to a
N or C of the macrocycle. Dean et al. claim 1 recites both the triacetic and tetraacetic
acid formulae, L and E groupings, and further defines L as optionally containing a
cleavable group. In the motion, Dean et al. moved, inter alia, to have claims 8, 22 and
23, designated as not corresponding to the count. Claim 8, which depends indirectly
upon claim 1, is directed to a bifunctional coupling agent having a specific linker, -L- ,
identified as a cleavable linker having the formula -(CH2)COCHCH2 OCH2CH2- and that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007