Interference No. 102,700
but we are not convinced that we misapprehended or overlooked
any points in rendering our Final Decision.
According to Gilligan, our decision was based on a
misapprehension that Gilligan "admitted" that its generic
product claims 71-74 were not enabled by the relevant
specification. This is not correct. A careful perusal of our
decision reveals that we never implied that junior party
Gilligan "admitted" that its generic "PAM" product claims were
nonenabled. What we did say was that the party Gilligan does
not dispute the holding in the Decision on Motions (Paper No.
79) that its generic product claims 71-74 (relating to
purified PAM protein) go beyond the scope of enablement
provided in its specification. In this regard, see pages 3-4
and 7 of our Final Decision. In fact, this was made
abundantly clear by Gilligan on several occasions. For
instance, see Gilligan's Statement of Issues (Paper No. 130-
1/2), and pages 1 and 33 of Gilligan's Brief (Paper No. 138).
In the Decision on Motions (page 5), it was specifically
held that the generic product claims 71-74 are beyond the
scope of enablement provided by Gilligan's involved and parent
application. The holding of nonenablement was premised upon a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007