Interference No. 104,829 Paper93
Vigne/Gencell v. Kovesdi v. Perricaudet/Gencell Page 2
Pursuant to the "Order to Show Cause" dated September 16, 2003 (Paper 80)
and in view of the "Order Redeclaring Interference" dated September 16, 2003 (Paper
79), the "Communication Suspending Final Judgment Against GencellNigne" dated
October 7, 2003 (Paper 81) and the Rule 662 Judgment against party Kovesdi dated
May 5, 2004 (Paper 92), it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Counts 3 and 4 (Paper 79, pp. 2-4) is
awarded against junior party EMMANUELLE VIGNE, MICHEL PERRICAUDET, JEAN
FRANQOIS DEDIEU, CıCILE ORSINI, PATRICE YEH, MARTINE LATTA and
EDOUARD PROST (Gencell/Vigne).
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party EMMANUELLE VIGNE, MICHEL
PERRICAUDET, JEAN-FRANQOIS DEDIEU, CıCILE ORSINI, PATRICE YEH,
MARTINE LATTA and EDOUARD PROST (Gencell/Vigne) is not entitled to a patent
containing
(i) claim 33 (corresponding to Count 3) and
(ii) claims 1-6, 11-21 and 23-25 (corresponding to Count 4)
of U.S. Patent 6,127,175, issued October 3, 2000, based on U.S. application
08/875,223, filed July 17, 1997.' (Paper 79, pp. 2-4).
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in the
files of U.S. patent 6,127,175, U.S. application 08/258,416 and U.S. application
08/397,225.
1 Vigne claims 7-10, 22 and 26-32 do not correspond to any of Counts 1 through 6 and, therefore,
are not involved in the interference (Paper 79, p. 4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007