maintaining physical contact between the feeder cell layer and said
one or more separated cells throughout the culturing period
to produce a cultured ungulate embryonic cell.
F 13. Count I is the sole count of the interference:
Count I
Claim I of U.S. Patent 5,905,042 or Claim 44 of Application 09/573,044.
UMass' Motion to Deny Benefit
F 14. UMass moves to strike the benefit accorded to Infigen. Paper 29.
F 15. UMass argues that Infigen's benefit application does not provide a written description of an
embodiment within the scope of the count. Paper 29, p. 2.
F 16. In particular, UMass argues that Infigen's parent application fails to provide a written
description of the identification of cells having (1) a cytoplasmic:nuclear volume ratio of
50:50 or less and (2) cytoplasmic vesicles. Paper 29, p. 2.
F 17. UMass says:
The '085 application is 44 pages in length, inclusive of the abstract of the
disclosure. Nowhere in those 44 pages are cells described which have (1) a
cytoplasmic:nuclear volume ratio of 50:50orless or (ii) cytoplasmic vesicles.
A description of those characteristics is simply lacking in the disclosure of
the '085 application. Therefore, the '085 application fails to describe an
embodiment within the scope of the count of the interforence. Accordingly,
Infigen should be denied the benefit of the filing date of the'085 application.
Paper 29, p. 2.
F 18. UMass has not submitted any deposition or affidavit testimony in support of its motion.
The Disclosure of Infigen Benefit Application 08/172,385
F 19. Application 08/172,385 expressly states that the following documents' are incorporated by
reference in their entireties:
Numerous other documents are referenced throughout Infigen's written description. However, the
description does not expressly state that they are incorporated by reference. We express no view on whether the
additional documents should also be considered to be incorporated by reference.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007