Interference No. 103,203
granted. See p. 7, supra.
The Edgington et al. position with respect to Lawn et al.
Edgington et al. argue that the Lawn et al. applications do not constitute a
constructive reduction to practice of a species within the scope of the count because of
nucleotide sequence discrepancies in the Figures and a lack of enabling teachings in the
text of the specification. Edgington Brief, Paper No. 347, pp. 33-37. In addition,
Edgington et al. contend that Lawn et al. have not described the best mode for carrying out
the invention in the early parent applications. Id., pp. 38-44. According to Edgington et al.,
the parent applications direct one skilled in the art to extract recombinant tissue factor
protein from the medium; whereas, the inventors represented to the scientific community
that the protein must be obtained from the cells. Id., p. 39 and 42-43.
The Nemerson et al. position with respect to Lawn et al.
Nemerson et al. did not file a supplemental brief after the interference was
redeclared making Lawn et al. a party to the present proceedings. Thus, Nemerson
et al. have not presented any arguments to Lawn et al.’s motions or the statements in
their brief.
Nemerson et al.’s case for priority (as set forth in their brief)
(1) Nemerson et al. state that on January 23, 1987, Dr. Ronald Bach, a
researcher in Dr. Konigsberg’s laboratory at Yale University, “received a computer listing
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007