Interference No. 105,099 Paper 25
Hannum v. Immunex Corp. Page 3
Immunex 449 claims 1-15
[7] The Immunex 806 claims and the Hannum 882 claims are drawn to flt-ligand
polypeptides [2003; 2005].
[8] The Immunex 449 claims and the Hannum 168 claims are drawn to antibodies (or kits
using such antibodies) for the flt3 ligand as each party has claimed the ligand [2004;
2006].
[9] The Immunex claims all define the claimed invention in terms of relatively long
subsequences of Immunex SEQ ID NO:2.5
[10] The Hannum claims are generic to the Immunex claims in the sense that they recite
properties of the defining flt3-ligand polypeptide, including relatively short
subsequences, rather than reciting a continuous, relatively large subsequence as
Immunex does (e.g., Paper 22, unopp'd facts 10 and 18).
[11] The Immunex species claims defined by its SEQ ID NO:2 anticipate Hannum's generic
claims.6
[12] According to Hannum, nothing in its claims or specification teach or suggest the specific
polypeptide sequence of Immunex SEQ ID NO:2, which is central to the definition of the
Immunex invention in the involved Immunex claims (e.g., Paper 22, unopp'd facts 17
and 20).
5 Immunex 806 claims 52 and 56 and 449 claims 1, 6, and 11 are defined in terms of a deposited
vector, but neither party has argued that this vector represents a sequence different from the relevant portions
of Immunex SEQ ID NO:2.
6 The Hannum kit claims would not be anticipated, but their separate patentability has not been
separately argue d. Presumab ly Hannum c oncedes for the purpose of this m otion that the use of antibo dies to
a known polypep tide in the form of a kit is too obvious to co ntest.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007