Interference No. 104,396
Page 3
Cheng, Application 08/463,960: 37-39, 41, 43, 45-47, 49, 51, 52, 54-56, 58
60, 62-64, 66, 72, 74-78, 84, 86-90, 96, 98
102,105,107,108,111,113,114,120,122
126, 132, 134-138, 144, 146-150 and 152
223 and 225 .3
Belleau, U.S. Patent 5,532,246: 1-9
Belleau Application 09/585,43 1: 1-15
As set forth in the parties "Joint Statement on Claim Correspondence" (Paper No. 234),
the parties have disagreed on the following claim correspondences:
Cheng, Application 08/463,960: 170-172 and 224.
Belleau, U.S. Patent 5,532,246: 3 and 4
Belleau Application 09/5 85,43 1: 3 and 4
(Paper No. 234, p. 2).
Generally, the parties have disagreed as to the scope of the terminology "comprising
enantiomer." Belleau takes the position that the term "(-) enantiomer" means the (-)-enantiomer
in its pure form, i.e., having at least 95% purity of the (-)-enantiomer in relation to the (+)
enantiomer. (Paper No. 237, pages 2-3). Furthermore, Belleau argues that the term
"comprising" cannot be interpreted as allowing the addition of more than 5% (+)-enantiomer as
the term comprising does not allow the addition of elements inconsistent with the recited
limitations of the claims. In contrast, it is Cheng's position that the term "comprising" allows for
the inclusion of additional elements such as the (+)-enantiomer for a claim "comprising" the (-)
enantiomer. (Paper No, 236, p. 6). To resolve the parties dispute, we first construe the meaning
of the term (-)-enantiomer and then the term "comprising."
'Taken from Cheng's Amendment to Cancel Dependent Claim 224 (Paper No. 239, p. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007