Interference No. 104,436 Paper 98
Shyamala v. Hillman Page 15
Reconsideration of the Board% decision on Shyamala's benefit
[106] Shyamala was ordered to file "any request for reconsideration ... within twenty-one (2 1) days of
the date of' the decision on motions.
[107] No request for reconsideration was filed within that time period.
[108] Shyarnala points (Paper 89 at 26-27) to its exhibits 1004-1009 and its disclosures as establishing
error in the decision motions, but does not point to a specific finding or conclusion deemed to be
in error or to a specific part of the record that shows why the finding or conclusion is in error.
[109] Shyamala contends that the Board recognized a utility, as a tissue assay, for at least some of
Shyarnala's claims (Paper 89 at 28).
[110] Tle Board held that Ollman had not established a lack of utility for the invention of Shyamala
claim 6 (Paper 71, F44-F50) and, by extension, for Shyamala claims I and 10.
[111] The Board specifically rejected as unsupported Shyamala's contention that it had a utility linked
to the interaction of MIP and MKK3 (Paper 71, F5 1-F53).
[112] Dr. Shyarnala's declaration recounts the use of a northern blot assay to determine tissues in which
MIP is expressed [ 1025 at 10- 11 J.
[113] Dr. Shyamala's declaration [ 1025 at 10- 111 does not disclose a method of identifying tissue based
on differential MIP expression. It shows the opposite: that starting with a small sample of
known tissues, Shyamala could determine whether those tissues express MIP under a specific set
of conditions.
[1141 Dr. Shyamala does not go so far as to declare that the northern blot experiment was the basis for
a useful tissue-identification assay.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007