F 17. Stice's claims were twice subject to rejections on a variety of grounds including
unpatentability over prior art. Application 08/781,752, Paper 6, pp. 2-9 and Paper 8, pp.
2-14.
F 18. Stice filed responses which included cancelling all the claims and submitting new claims
80-102. Application 08/781,752, Paper 12, pp. 1-6.
F 19. Some of Stice's new claims were in Jepson format and all the claims limited the donor cell
to a somatic cell or cell cornmitted to a somatic cell lineage. Application 08/781,752,
Paper 12, pp. 1-6.
F 20. The examiner allowed claims after further amendment, by examiner's amendment,
cancelling all claims and adding claims that require that the donor cell be "a proliferating
somatic cell that has been expanded in culture." Application 08/781,752, Paper 15, pp. 1-6.
F 21. The Slice 577 patent issued with claims essentially as amended by the examiner on August
31,1999,
B. Prosecution of Strelchenko Application 09/357,445.
F 22. During the prosecution of the Strelchenko application, on November 16, 2000, Strelcbenk o
filed a paper cancelling and amending claims and requesting an interference with the Stice
5 77 patent. Application 09/3 5 7,445, Paper 10.
F 23. After rejection by the examiner and further action by Strelchenko, the examiner indicated
that the claims were allowable and suspended prosecution "due to a potential interference."
Application 09/357,445, Paper 14, p. 2, mailed June 4, 2001.
F 24. Prosecution was again suspended by the Technology Center 1600 Interference Practice
Specialist on December 31, 2001. Application 09/357,445, Paper 17.
F 25. Strelchenko subsequently requested that an interference also be declared with the Stice 041
and 969 patents. Application 09/357,445, Paper 18, mailed November 25, 2001, and
received by the Office on January 24, 2002.
F 26. This interference was declared on February 20, 2002.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007