Interference No. 104,021 Paper No. 112
Griffin v. Bertina Page 4
Lauder, 129 F.3d at 593-94, 44 USPQ2d at 1614 (citing Breen v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d 1398, 1401,
176 USPQ 519, 521 (CCPA 1973)).
Facts
A junior party in an interference between co-pending applications must establish priority
by a preponderance of evidence. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896,
1900 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Inventor testimony must be independently corroborated. Cooper,
154 F.3d at 1330, 47 USPQ2d at 1903.
F1. John H. Griffin (Dr. Griffin) and Judith S. Greengard (Dr. Greengard) are the
named inventors of Griffin's involved 07/410,488 application.
F2. Griffin's involved application was filed 24 March 1995. Griffin has not been
accorded benefit of any other application.
F3. Bertina's involved 08/454,353 application was filed 6 June 1995. Bertina was
accorded the benefit (Paper No. 1 at 41) of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application
PCT/EP95/00553, filed 14 February 1995, and of European patent application 94-200377.3, filed
14 February 1994 (the critical date).
F4. Griffin's case is that the Griffin inventors (Drs. Griffin and Greengard) identified
the codon 506 mutation as a genetic cause of activated protein C (APC) resistance, which
increases the risk of thrombosis, no later than 2 December 1993 (Griffin's alleged priority date)
(Paper No. 94 at 15).
F5. The codon 506 point mutation is an A for G substitution at the middle nucleotide
of the codon (Paper No. 94 at 15 n.2). This mutation is also identified as nucleotide 205 of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007