Interference No. 104,272 Paper No. 56
Lerner v. Lerner v. Winter Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Senior party Winter has filed a request for adverse
judgment (Paper No. 51). Junior party Lerner and Sorge have
moved for no interference-in-fact between their involved
applications (Paper No. 54). The motion is unopposed. The
request is granted. The motion is granted for the reasons
discussed below.
DISCUSSION
In order for an interference-in-fact to exist, the
inventions claimed by the two different applicants must be
directed to the same patentable invention. 37 CFR § 1.601(j).
Two claimed inventions are the same patentable invention if
one would have been anticipated by, or obvious in view of the
other, and vice versa. 37 CFR § 1.601(n). In the instant
case, the claims of the 07/941,761 ('761) application contain
limitations that would not have been anticipated by, or
obvious in view of, the claims of the 07/941,762 ('762)
application, and vice versa.
In the '761 application, generic claims 17 and 31 are
directed to methods for the production of a population of
coexpression vectors comprising first and second
polynucleotide sequences. As part of the methods, libraries
of two types of cloning vectors are synthesized where each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007