Interference 105,039 Paper No. 28
Andree v. Klintz Page 20
break down the W groups to indicate how many fall within the
various classes listed in the specification, in original claim 1,
or in claim 53, casual inspection reveals that there are many
proposed W groups in each of the identified classes. Similarly,
we find that all 157 compounds reported synthesized in the
"Active Substance" Tables 1-4 at pages 118-27 of the
specification have R1 = chloro. Although these compounds have a
range of W groups, we find no indication which, if any, are
preferred for combination with R' = cyano.
Klintz, although apprized of our interpretation of Andree's
motion and the likely consequences of granting it, has failed to
direct our attention to any evidence that would tend to
contradict or weaken Andree's arguments. Thus, Klintz has
effectively waived any and all opposition to Andree Preliminary
Motion 1. Taken as a whole, we find no blaze marks in the
original Klintz specification that would direct one skilled in
the art to the subgenus of compounds covered by claims 53-55. We
therefore find that Andree has established a prima facie case
that the subgenus compounds covered by claims 53-55 are not
adequately described in the original Klintz application, and we
hold that Klintz is not entitled to a patent containing
claims 53-55.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007