for cloning, they reached this common goal by significantly different techniques. An important
aspect of Strelchenko's approach, as represented by the precritical date claims, was reprogramming
mature cells to make them totipotent and use these totipotent cells or their nuclei as the donor
material in cloning. E.g., Strelchenko Application 09/357,445, Paper I (specification), p. 4,11.12-23.
Strelchenko specifically detailed techniques to accomplish this reprogramming. Strelchenko
Application 09/357,445, Paper I (specification), p. 50,11.13-26. These reprograrnmed and totipotent
cells are then grown in culture and are used as the source of the donor material for nuclear transfer,
Strelchenko Application 09/357,445, Paper I (specification), p. 61,11. 18-19. On the other hand, the
Stice 577 claims use growing and cultured differentiated somatic cells without requiring
reprogramming prior to nuclear transfer. In the Stice method, mature differentiated cells are
collected, grown in culture and used as the source of the donor material for nuclear transfer without
any reprogramming. Stice 577, col. 15,1. 50 - col. 17,1. 53. Indeed, Stice's claims in requiring the
insertion of donormaterial from a "proliferating somatic cells which have been expanded in culture"
excludes the use of totipotent cells. Strelchenko's opposition has not asserted, nor directed us to
evidence, which would tend to show that the culturing of proliferating somatic cells described in the
Stice patent would inherently convert those cells into totipotent cells prior to use in nuclear transfer.
Strelchenko's precritical date claims do not claim the same or substantially the same subject matter
as the Stice 577 claims.
IV.
We hold that Strelchenko's precritical date claims are not directed to the same or
substantially the same subject matter as the claims of the Stice '577 patent. Accordingly,
Strelchenko's involved Claims 57-58, 61-63,69-88,106,112-115 and 118 are barred by 35 U.S.C.
§ 135(b)(1).
The University of Massachusetts' Preliminary Motion No. I is granted.
FINAL JUDGMENT
This interference was declared because an interference was thought to exist between the
claims of Strelchenko's application, Claims 57-58,61-63,69-88,106,112-115 and 118, and various
claims of the Stice patents. All of Strelchenko's involved claims have been held to be barred by 35
U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). Strelchenko has not attempted to add a claim that interfered with Stice's claims
-30-
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007