Interference No. 104,436 Paper 98
Shyamala v.. Hillman Page 3
[11] When the interference was declared, ShyamaIa had also been accorded the benefit of two
provisional applications
60/021,641, filed 12 July 1996, and
60/021,224, filed 3 July 1996
[12] ffillman successfully at tacked the benefit accorded to Shyamala for its provisional applications.
(13] If Shyamala were still entitled to that benefit, it would be senior party.
Shyamala's ELJority case
[14] Dr. Venkatakrishna Shyamala is the named inventor of the subject matter of the Shyamala
claims.
[15] According to Dr. ShyarnaIa, she began working on proteins that interact with MKK3 in 1994
1025' at 31.
[16] According to Dr. Shyamala, she was interested in MKK3 because it was known to regulate the
activity of p38 kinase, which itself was implicated in biological pathways of clinical interest
[1025 at 3].
[17) According to Dr. Shyamala, little was known about proteins interacting with MKK3 other than
p38 kinase [1025 at 3].
[18) Hamiduddin "Hamid" Khoja was Dr. Shyamala's assistant at the relevant time [1025 at 4-5].
[19] Mr. Khoja declared that he no longer works for Chiron and has no interest in the outcome of the
interference [1010 at 2).
1 Declaration of Venkatakrishna Shyarnala, Ph.D.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007