Interference No. 104,696 Paper 65
Khavari v. Tang Page 2
R-4TERFERENCE-IN-FACT
[11 Khavari moved forjudgment that no interference-in-fact existed (Paper 24). The motion
was denied in an interlocutory decision of a single administrative patent judge (Paper 28).
Khavari has requested reconsideration (Paper 35). Tang opposes the request for
reconsideration (Paper 54).
[2] Tang has also requested judgment of no interference-in-fact (Paper 42).
[3] Count 1, the sole count, is:
The method of Khavari claim I or of Tang claim 167.
[41 Khavari claim I is:
A method for inducing an immune response in a vertebrate, the method
comprising the steps of:
applying topically to skin of a subject an immunogen-encoding
polynucleotide in an amount sufficient for uptake by a skin cell and
sufficient for expression of the immunogen-encoding polynucleotide and
induction of an immune response, wherein the skin to which the
polynucleotide is applied comprises hair and is not treated with a chemical
or mechanical irritant, and wherein the polynucleotide is operably linked
to a promoter, and is not contained within a viral particle.
[5] Tang claim 167 is:
A method of non-invasively inducing a protective systemic immune
response, comprising topically administering, a DNA vector that encodes a gene
of interest and expresses a protein encoded by the gene of interest, to the skin of a
mammal, in an effective amount to induce said protective systemic immune
response to said protein, wherein a systemic immune response to said protein is
induced in said mammal; and, whereby said protein comprises an antigen or
immunogenic fragment thereof.
[61 Khavari argues (Paper 24 at 3) that its claim I requires that "the skin to which the
polynucleotide is applied comprises hair and is not treated with a chemical or mechanical
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007