iv. Many of Shiokawa’s Assumptions Regarding the Guidance Provided
by the ‘146 Patent are Unsupported ....................... 35
v. Example 5 of the ‘146 Patent does not Reasonably Convey that
Shiokawa Invented Claimed 1,3,5-oxadiazines .............. 38
vi. Shiokawa Had Role in Creation of 1,3,5-Oxadiazine Claims ... 41
vii. Lack of Written Description Finding is Consistent with Statement Made
by Several of the ‘146 Inventors ......................... 42
C. Maienfisch Preliminary Motion 1 Alleging Lack of Written Description for Claims of
‘146 Patent ...................................................... 43
1. Shiokawa Mischaracterizes the Decision in Fujikawa .............. 43
2. Dr. Zielger’s Testimony Does Not Establish Presence of 1,3,5-oxadiazine in
Final Product of Example 5
......................................................... 44
3. In re Driscoll is Readily Distinguish From the Facts of this Interference
......................................................... 45
4. Maienfisch’s Published Abstract Does Not Evidence the Shiokawa’s
Possession of the 1,3,5-oxadiazines ............................. 46
D. Shiokawa Preliminary Motion 4 that Maienfisch’s Claims are Unpatentable over Prior
Art ............................................................ 48
E. Shiokawa Preliminary Motion 13 to Suppress Maienfisch’s Exhibit 1001 ..... 53
F. Shiokawa Preliminary Motion 14 to Suppress Maienfisch’s Exhibits 1005, 1006 and
Paragraphs 48-49 of Exhibit 1001 .................................... 54
III. Order ................................................................ 55
ii
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Last modified: November 3, 2007