Interference No. 103,203
The claims which correspond to Count 2 are:
Nemerson et al.: Claims 1, 2, 14, 28 through 31, 38, 39 and 44 through 50.
Edgington et al.: Claims 1 through 7.
Lawn et al.: Claims 9, 11 through 14, 30 and 32 through 38.
In view of the granting of Nemerson et al.’s motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.634 to add
Dr. Spicer as a co-inventor, the correct listing of the inventors for Nemerson et al. now
reads as follows: Yale Nemerson, William H. Konigsberg and Eleanor K. Spicer.
Findings of fact related to Edgington et al.’s case for priority
(1) Edgington et al. filed a patent application (Application No. 07/033,047)
describing an invention within the scope of Count 2 on March 31, 1987. Application
07/033,047, Figure 1.
(2) The earliest date argued in the Edgington et al. Brief for an actual reduction
to practice of an invention within the scope of the count is March 6, 1987. Edgington
Briefs, see, e.g., Paper No. 128, pp. 16, 18, 40-41; Paper No. 347, pp. 9
and 31.
The Nemerson et al. position with respect to Edgington et al.
Nemerson et al. argue that Edgington et al. did not (i) isolate a DNA molecule as
defined by Count 1, or (ii) construct a DNA molecule encoding full length human tissue
factor. Nemerson Brief, pp. 41-49. Thus, Nemerson et al. contend that Edgington et al.
did not establish an actual reduction to practice of a species within the scope of the count.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007