not decided if the Glaxo involved claims are unpatentable on any other basis. Cabilly
preliminary motions 1-6 are DISMISSED as moot.
Cabilly preliminary motions 7-9
Cabilly preliminary motion 7 to redefine the interference by adding proposed claims
61-67 to the ‘611 application was filed by Cabilly under 37 CFR 1.633(i) in response to Glaxo
preliminary motions. 37 CFR § 1.633(i) allows a party to file a preliminary motion to redefine
the interfering subject matter in response to an opponent’s preliminary motion under § 1.633(a),
§ 1.633(b), or § 1.633(g). Since we do not grant any Glaxo motion filed under § 1.633(a),
§ 1.633(b), or § 1.633(g), we need not and have not decided Cabilly preliminary motion 7.
Cabilly preliminary motions 8 and 9 seek priority benefit of the ‘457 and ‘419
applications as to proposed claims 61-67. Since we do not decide to add claims 61-67 to the
‘611 application, we need not and have not decided Cabilly preliminary motions 8 and 9
Cabilly preliminary motions 7-9 are DISMISSED as moot.
E. Other Cabilly motions
Cabilly’s first motion to suppress evidence
In its first motion to suppress evidence (Paper 167), Cabilly moves to suppress Glaxo
Exhibits 2033, 2231, 2088, 2230, 2028, 2157, 2220, 2098, 2148, 2103, and 2159. To the extent
we relied upon Glaxo Exhibits 2033, 2231, 2088, 2230, 2028, 2157, 2220, 2098, 2148, 2103, and
2159, we did not find the exhibits persuasive in supporting Glaxo’s position. Therefore, the
suppression of the exhibits would not change our decision and therefore we need not, and have
not, decided Cabilly’s first motion to suppress. Cabilly’s first motion to suppress is
DISMISSED as moot.
-53-
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007