Interference No. 103,675
which satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. On its face, the
first filed application was directed to mixtures of fluorine epimers
of a taxol derivative not cyclopropyl derivatives. Additionally, the
evidence in this proceeding establishes that the disclosure in said
first-filed application reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary
skill in the art the preparation of mixtures of 7-fluoro-taxol epimers
not cyclopropyl derivatives and would have been understood by a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to
be directed to fluorinated epimers of taxol derivatives not
cyclopropyl derivatives. Indeed, Chen et al.'s evidence establishes
that, assuming arguendo, cyclopropyl derivatives were prepared, such a
discovery would have been considered unexpected or "surprising."
Accordingly, Chen et al. have failed to prove that they are
entitled to the relief requested in their motions and the Chen et al.
motions for benefit are, therefore, DENIED.
BOUCHARD ET AL.'S MOTIONS BRIEF
According to Bouchard et al.'s motions brief there are
therein six issues presented for our decision. Specifically, Bouchard
et al. seek review of the APJ's interlocutory decisions regarding:
1) - Bouchard et al.'s motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.635 to
file belated motions for judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633(a)
and filed on March 6, 2000 (Paper Number 248);
39
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007