NEMERSON et al. V. EDGINGTON et al. V. LAWN et al. - Page 2


                Interference No. 103,203                                                                                                      



                                        FINAL DECISION AND DECISION ON MOTIONS                                                                
                         This is an interference between Nemerson et al., Edgington et al. and Lawn      et al.                               
                Lawn et al. are senior party by virtue of U.S. Application 07/013,743, filed February 12,                                     
                1987.                                                                                                                         
                                                               Background                                                                     
                         The subject matter at issue is directed to a DNA sequence encoding mature human                                      
                tissue factor.  The mature human tissue factor protein is 263 amino acids in length and is                                    
                said to play an important role in blood coagulation.  Nemerson Brief, p. 1.                                                   
                         All the parties took testimony, filed briefs and were represented by counsel at Final                                
                Hearing.                                                                                                                      
                         None of the parties raised the issue of no interference-in-fact.                                                     
                         The main briefs of the parties present the following issues for our decision:                                        
                         (1)  Whether Edgington et al. have established priority of invention over Nemerson                                   
                et al. and Lawn et al.                                                                                                        
                         (2)  Whether Nemerson et al. have established a date of invention prior to February                                  
                12, 1987.                                                                                                                     
                         (3)  Whether the Lawn et al. application(s) constitute a constructive reduction to                                   
                practice of an invention within the scope of the count.                                                                       
                         In addition, the following motions which were denied, dismissed or deferred to final                                 
                hearing, are raised in the briefs:                                                                                            




                                                                      2                                                                       



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007