Interference No. 104,544 Paper149
McDonald v. Miyazaki Page 31
representations about the C-terminal fragment fell well below the duty of candor that
applicants owe to the United States Patent and Trademark Office when seeking a
patent. Dr. McDonald's conduct is the sort of over-reaching and truth-shaving that
Rule 56 was enacted to prevent.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the bdefs, motions, oppositions, and replies discussed
above, and in view of the evidence of recorded specifically cited by the parties, it is:
ORDERED that judgment on priodty as to Count 3 be awarded against
McDonald;
FURTHER ORDERED that McDonald not be entitled to a patent containing
claims 1-22 & 24-27 of the McDonald 5,593,666 patent, which correspond to Count 3;
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 5 be awarded
against McDonald;
FURTHER ORDERED that McDonald not be entitled to a patent containing
claims 9-12, 18, 20-23 & 25-27 of the McDonald 5,593,666 patent, which correspond to
Count5;and
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007