Interference No. 104,761 Paper`108
Univ. of New Mexico v. Fordham Univ. Page 2
Fordham's motion to add another UNM patent. UNM is seeking reconsideration
(Paper 100) of the decision to deny its Preliminary Motion 2, in which UNM argued that
Fordham's claims would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Fordham's invention. Fordham seeks reconsideration (Paper 102) of the
decision to deny the part of its Preliminary Motion 4, in which Fordham argued that
UNM's 716 claims 7-12 should correspond to count 3.
FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS
Enumerated findings are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence.
The ultimate burden of proof for a motion lies with the movant. 37 C.F.R. § 1.637(a).
The ultimate burden on priority lies with the junior party. 37 C. F.R. § 1.657(a). The
burden on reconsideration lies with the requester. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.640(c) and 1.658(b).
Reconsideration of UNM PreliminarV Motion
(11 UNM moved to have Fordham University's claims held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
103.
[21 The motion cites the following references as the basis for unpatentability:
Palleros et al., "Hsp-70 Protein Complexes", 289 J. Biol. Chem. 13107
(1994) [2030]1
Liberek et al.,"Escherichia coli DnaJ and GrpE heat shock proteins jointly
stimulate ATPase activity of DnaK", 88 Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. 2874 (1991)
[2031]
Liberek et al.,"Escherichia coli DnaK Chaperone, the 70 kDa Heat Shock
Protein Eukaryotic Equivalent, Changes Conformation upon ATP
Hydrolysis, Thus Triggering Its Dissociation from a Bound Target Protein",
266 J. Biol. Chem. 14491 (1991) [20321
1 UNM exhibits are numbered from 2001; Fordham's, from 1001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007