18. The interference was declared on April 7, 2000, (Paper No. 1), with Count 1 which reads as
follows:
A compound according to claim 1 of Shiokawa or claim 24 of Maienfisch,
or
a composition according to claim 2 of Shiokawa or claim 26 of Maienfisch,
or
a method according to claim 3 of Shiokawa or claim 27 of Maienfisch.
(Paper No. 1, p. 47, Paper No. 50 and Paper No. 62).
19. As set forth in the Order Granting Shiokawa Preliminary Motion 2, Paper No. 50, Maienfisch
claims 26 and 27 were held unpatentable as being indefinite under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§112. Per Paper No. 50, Maienfisch timely filed an amendment canceling claims 26 and 27 and adding
new claims 28 and 29 which depend from independent claim 24. (Maienfisch Filing of Amendment,
Paper No. 62). Thus, as set forth in Paper No. 50, the Board sua sponte replaces Count 1 with Count
2 to reflect the cancellation of Maienfisch claims 26 and 27 and the addition of new claims 28 and 29.
Count 2 reads as follows:
A compound according to claim 1 of Shiokawa or claim 24 of Maienfisch,
or
14
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007