TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Findings of Fact ........................................................ 2
A. The Interference ................................................... 2
B. The Junior Party ................................................... 2
C. The Senior Party ................................................... 2
D. Disclosures of the Application and Patent Involved in the Interference ........ 3
1. Shiokawa’s ‘146 Patent ....................................... 3
2. Maienfisch’s ‘664 Application ................................ 11
E. The Count ....................................................... 12
II. Opinion .............................................................. 14
A. Overview of Preliminary Motions .................................... 14
B. Shiokawa Corrected Preliminary Motion 1 for Priority Benefit ............. 16
1. Case Law Analysis for According Priority Benefit ................. 16
i. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin ................................ 18
ii. In re Driscoll ........................................ 22
iii. In re Smith .......................................... 25
2. Shiokawa’s Earlier Applications are not a Constructive Reduction to Practice
of the Subject Matter of Count 1 ............................... 27
i. Shiokawa’s Claimed 1,3,5-Oxadiazine Subgenus is Narrower than
Shiokawa’s Genus and Both Broader and Narrower than Shiokawa’s
“Preferred” Subgenus .................................. 29
ii. Shiokawa Makes Numerous Assumptions in Order to Demonstrate
that the ‘146 Patent Guides One Skilled in the Art to the Claimed
1,3,5-Oxadiazines .................................... 30
iii. Shiokawa’s Assumptions Evidence Obviousness Not Written
Description .......................................... 32
i
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007