Interference 105,039 Paper No. 28
Andree v. Klintz Page 24
compounds covered by claim 56, and that Klintz is therefore not
entitled to a claim limited to those species. Consequently,
acting on behalf of the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, we hold that the interference as to Count 2 was
declared improvidently, and that there is no interference-in-fact
as to the subject matter of Count 2.
order
In consideration of the foregoing findings of facts and
considerations, it is:
ORDERED that Andree's motion for judgment based on no
interference-in-fact is GRANTED;
FURTHER ORDERED that there is no interference-in-fact
between any of Klintz's claims 1-7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 26-30, 36,
37, 39, 40, 43-51, 53-55 of application 09/733,554 and any of
Andree's claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent 6,251,828, which
correspond to Count 1;
FURTHER ORDERED that there is no interference-in-fact
between Klintz's claim 56 of application 09/733,554 and Andree's
claims 5 of U.S. Patent 6,251,828, which correspond to Count 2;
FURTHER ORDERED that Ralf Klintz, Peter Schaefer,
Gerhard Hamprecht, Elisabeth Heistracher, Hans-Josef Wolf, Karl
Otto Westphalen, Matthias Gerber, Uwe Kardorff, Helmut Walter,
and Klaus Grossmann, jointly and severally, are not entitled to a
patent containing claims 53-56 of application 09/733,554;
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007