Interference No. 104,241
1989).
Jeon et al. elected to prove they were prima facie
entitled to judgment by attempting to prove that they actually
reduced to practice an embodiment within the count prior to
Cupps et al.'s effective filing date. See page 4 of Paper
Number 10 of Jeon et al.'s involved application ("REQUEST FOR
INTERFERENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.607 AND SHOWING UNDER 37
C.F.R. §1.608(b)).
The count in this interference is a so-called bifurcated
count, that is, the count defines the interfering subject
matter in four alternatives, each of which is presumed to be
the "same patentable invention" in the sense of 37 C.F.R. §
1.601(n). Thus, the count requires: either of two compounds
represented by a particular structural formula; a
pharmaceutical composition comprising a safe and effective
amount of a compound of either aforementioned formula; or, a
method for preventing or treating various diseases comprising
administering a safe and effective amount of a compound of
either formula.
Thus, the evidence relied on by Jeon et al. in their
showing under the rule must establish that every limitation of
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007