WALLACE et al. v. HUBBARD - Page 3



          Interference No. 103,570                                                    

               particles close to or in contact with each other, said                 
               particles having a size distribution in the range from 15 µm           
               to 150 µm.                                                             
               or                                                                     
               (c) [Hubbard claim 46]                                                 
               [46.]  A method for augmenting tissue in a living                      
               mammal, said method comprising subcutaneously injecting a              
               composition including a ceramic matrix present in a                    
               pharmaceutically acceptable fluid carrier to a tissue site,            
               wherein the ceramic matrix comprises particles having a size           
               distribution in the range from 35 µm to 150 µm.                        
                                                                                     
               The claims of the parties which presently correspond to the            
          count are:                                                                  
               Wallace: Claims 1-16.                                                  
               Hubbard: Claims 21-23, 25-34, 36-37, 39, 41-50.                        
               During the preliminary motion stage of this interference,              
          Hubbard filed, inter alia, a motion to substitute a proposed                
          count A (Hubbard motion 1: Paper No. 31), and a motion to                   
          redesignate claims 21-23 and 25-45 as not corresponding to the              
          original count or proposed count A (Hubbard motion 5: Paper No.             
          35); both motions being opposed by Wallace.                                 
               In a decision on motions (Paper No. 57), the Administrative            
          Patent Judge (APJ) agreed with Hubbard that the original count              
          should be broadened.  However, rather than substituting the count           
          proposed by Hubbard, the APJ proposed, sua sponte, that the count           
          include in alternative format the independent claims of each                
                                          3                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007