Interference No. 104,830 Paper126
Vigne/Gencell v. Wang v. Perricaudet/Gencell Page 2
1. Order
Therefore, pursuant to the "Order to Show Cause" dated February 25, 2004
(Paper 118) and in view of the "Decision on Preliminary Motions" dated February 25,
2004 (Paper 116), the "Order Redeclaring Interference" dated February 25, 2004
(Paper 117), the "Order" suspending final judgment against Vigne/Gencell as to Counts
3 and 7 and against Perricaudet/Gencell as to Count 8 dated April 2, 2004 (Paper 120),
the "Decision on Rehearing" dated May 21, 2004 (Paper 125), and the "Decision on
Order to Show Cause" dated May 21, 2004 (Paper 126), it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Counts 3 and 7 (Paper 117, pp. 2-6) is
awarded against junior party EMMANUELLE VIGNE, MICHEL PERRICAUDET, JEAN
FRANQOIS DEDIEU, CýCILE ORSINI, PATRICE YEH, MARTINE LATTA and
EDOUARD PROST (Vigne/Gencell).
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party EMMANUELLE VIGNE, MICHEL
PERRICAUDET, JEAN-FRAN(ýOIS DEDIEU, CýCILE ORSINI, PATRICE YEH,
MARTINE LATTA and EDOUARD PROST (Vigne/Gencell) is not entitled to a patent
containing
(i) claim 33 (corresponding to Count 3) and
(ii) claims 1-6, 11-16, 20-21 and 23-25 (corresponding to Count 7)
of U.S. Patent 6,127,175, issued October 3, 2000, based on U.S. application
08/875,223, filed July 17, 1997.' (Paper 117, pp. 2-6).
1 Vigne claims 7-10, 17-19, 22 and 26-32 do not correspond to any of Counts 3, 7 and 8 and,
therefore, are not involved in the interference (Paper 117, p. 7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007