Moore et al.v.Saris et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2009

09895943 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2009)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 75
Telephone: 571-272-4683 31 March 2009

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

Patent Interference No. 105,613 (RT)

AMGEN, INC.
(09/895,943),
Junior party,

v.

HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, INC.
and Schering Corp.
(6,844,170),
Senior party.

Before: RICHARD TORCZON, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Bd.R. 127
On merits
I. INTRODUCTION
In an accompanying decision (Paper 74), the Board holds that the
senior party (HGS) did not satisfy the utility requirement in its disclosure.
Since utility is also a requirement for reduction to practice, University of
Interference No. 105,613 Page 2

Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2004), HGS
no longer has a constructive reduction to practice. Consequently, it is
appropriate to enter judgment.
II. JUDGMENT
ORDERED that judgment be entered against HGS for count 1, the
sole count (Paper 1);
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-34 of the HGS involved patent
(Paper 4) be CANCELED, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be entered in the
administrative records of the involved patent and application.

cc:

Anthony M. Zupcic and Robert H. Fischer, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper &
Scinto, of New York City, New York, for Amgen, Inc.

Richard L. DeLucia and John Kenny, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York
City, New York, for Human Genome Sciences, Inc. and Schering Corp.