WALLACH et al. V. SMITH - Page 4


               Interference No. 103,854                                                                                              


                                                          Burden of Proof                                                            
                     In a motion which seeks to designate a claim as not corresponding to the count, the                             
              burden is on the moving party to show, by a preponderance of the evidence,                                             
                     that the claim does not define the same patentable invention as any other claim                                 
                     whose designation in the notice declaring the interference as corresponding to the                              
                     count the party does not dispute [37 C.F.R. § 1.637(c)(4)(ii)].                                                 
                     In interference proceedings, the same patentable invention is defined by 37 C.F.R.                              
              § 1.601(n) as:                                                                                                         
                     Invention “A” is the same patentable invention as an invention B” when invention “A” is                         
              the same as (35 U.S.C. 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention “B” assuming                            
              invention “B” is prior art with respect to invention “A”.  Invention “A” is a separate patentable                      
              invention with respect to invention “B” when invention “A” is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and non-                             
              obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention “B” assuming invention “B” is prior art with                              
              respect to invention “A”.                                                                                              
                     In the case before us, Wallach moves to designate claims 3, 6 and 7 of their U.S.                               
              Patent 5,478,925, as not corresponding to the count.  Thus, Wallach must show that the                                 
              subject matter of the referenced claims is not the same as, or obvious in view of, those                               
              claims which they agree correspond to the count.  Here, the burden is on Wallach to                                    
              establish that the species described in claims 3 and 6 would not have been obvious in view                             
              of the genus of multimers encompassed by Smith claim 39 and Wallach claim 1,                                           
              corresponding to the count.  In addition, Wallach must establish that the multimer being                               
              encapsulated by a liposome (claim 7), would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in                          
              the art in view of the multimer described in Smith claim 39 and Wallach claim 1,                                       
              corresponding to the count in combination with Utsumi.5                                                                


                                                               Claim 3                                                               

                       5 Utsumi, et al. (Utsumi), “Preparation and Characterization of Liposomal-                                    
               Lipophilic Tumor Necrosis Factor,” Cancer Research, Vol. 51, pp. 3362-366 (1991).                                     
                                                                   4                                                                 


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007