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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007