Interference No. 103,675
earlier filed applications must have produced compounds within the
count.
In his declaration of March 8, 1996, John F. Kadow, an
employee of the assignee of the Chen et al. patent in this
interference, testified that he or persons under his supervision
repeated in 1996 examples 2, 3, 5 and 6 from Chen et al.'s first filed
application (CR 1007, line 23 through CR 1008, line 21 6). According to
Chen et al., repeating the examples from their first filed application
demonstrates that the compounds prepared as described in the involved
Chen et al. patent are necessarily obtained by following the examples
in the first filed Chen et al. application. Based on the repeat of
said examples, Chen et al. argue that compounds within each of the
counts are described in the parent applications.
The preparation of the products from the examples in their
first filed application is stated to have been repeated using
"exactly" the same reagents and procedures described in the examples
of Chen et al.'s first filed application for which they now seek
benefit (CR 18, ¶7, last sentence). Kadow testified that the products
6 References to the Chen et al. record will be designated
as CR, followed by the record page number, and references
to the Chen et al. exhibits will be designated CX, followed by the
exhibit number. References to the Bouchard et al. record will be
designated as BR followed by the record page number. References to
the Bouchard et al. exhibits will be designated by BX followed by
the exhibit number.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007