Interference 105,039 Paper No. 28
Andree v. Klintz Page 12
Interpretation of Andree's motion
40. On April 24, 2003, an order was issued authorizing
Senior party Klintz to file an Opposition to Andree's Preliminary
Motion 1. (Paper 28.)
a. That order characterized Andree's motion as
seeking three determinations, namely:
(1) that Klintz is not entitled to a patent
containing claims 53-55 for lack of an adequate written
description of the "selection invention";
(2) that Klintz is not entitled to a patent
containing claim 56 for lack of an adequate written description
of the "selection invention"; and
(3) that there is no interference-in-fact between
Klintz's claims 1-7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 26-30, 36, 37, 39, 40, and
43-51, and Andree's claims 1-4 and 6. Andree maintains that it
has shown that its claimed subgenus of compounds exhibits
unexpected results and is patentable over the genus of compounds
claimed by Klintz.
(Paper 28 at 3-4.)
41. On May 23, 2003, Klintz timely filed a statement in
response to the Order. (Paper 29.)
a. Klintz's substantive remarks were as follows:
"Klintz agrees with Andree Preliminary Motion 1 in particular
Andree's concession that 'even if the interference is terminated,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007