Interference 103,579
No. 19) for judgment that Claims 1, 4, 6-20, and 22 of
Hofvander’s involved application, filed November 24, 1993,
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, was
dismissed as moot because Hofvander deleted the subject
matter to which Visser objected (Paper No. 74, pp. 6-7).
(4) Visser’s Preliminary Motion 4 (VPM 4)(Paper
No. 20) for judgment that Claims 1, 4, and 6-23 of
Hofvander’s involved application, filed November 24, 1993,
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Visser’s 1991
publication (VDX 8), was granted (Paper No. 74, p. 7).
However, the decision is based on a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 having been established
in view of Visser’s 1991 publication (Paper No. 74, p. 8):
By opposing Visser’s preliminary motion 1 for
judgment on the ground of no interference-in-fact,
Hofvander has conceded that Visser’s claims, which
are directed to introducing full length antisense
cDNA PGBBS [sic, PGBSS] into a potato, render obvious
Hofvander’s claims which are directed to introducing
antisense fragments of PGBBS [sic, PGBSS] into a
potato. See also, the arguments made by Hofvander
in his opposition (Paper No. 46) to the Visser
motion (1) . . . which arguments the APJ relies
upon to show obviousness.
Presuming that a prima facie case of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is established in view of the disclosure of
Visser’s 1991 publication, it was further determined that
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007