Interference 103,482
and 36-37), that Winter’s formulas (I-IV) would have been both
derivable from Randall’s teachings and known to persons
skilled in the art as of the earliest effective filing date of
the subject matter claimed in Dolle’s applications.
Nevertheless, Dr. Atwood persists, “[i]t is simply
impossible based on the disclosure found in the party Dolle’s
Application Serial No. 147,006 to determine what special
meaning is to be attributed by the phrase ‘a sequence length
of 3-50 monomer units’ whether it be applied to an isotactic
sequence or to a syndiotactic sequence or to a distribution of
meso and racemic dyads as Dr. Winter may be arguing” (RE 16;
emphasis added). We disagree with Dr. Atwood’s assessment of
Dolle’s disclosure.
Dr. Atwood first reasons that the term “sequence length”
or “isotactic sequence” has a different meaning in Kaminsky et
al, U.S. Patent 4,841,004 (EE VII), which is assigned to the
same assignee as Dolle Application 08/147,006 (RE 16, last
full sentence). For example, Dr. Atwood points out (RE 17):
In the ‘004 patent, a reference to an isotactic sequence
of 2 monomer units necessarily means just what it says
since any isotactic sequence must necessarily have at
least 2 monomer units. Finally, in the various examples,
the ‘004 patent makes reference to “an isotactic sequence
length of n ....”
c
79
Page: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007