This article in Times Online talks about a mother who was a surrogate for her daughter and gave birth to her own grandchild. It's interesting that the strongest part of the article is the debate about surrogacy that the whole story has sparked in Japan.
There is, however, something wrong with the story - check out this paragraph, "Yesterday’s successful treatment involved the woman having her daughter’s already fertilized egg implanted in her womb. The entire family is understood to have agreed to undergo the process, despite its difficulties, because the woman’s daughter was born without ovaries..." OK, so I want to understand how, if she was born without ovaries, she had ova... (it also sounds as if the treatment took place yesterday, whereas the report was about a birth...)
Updated: I did manage to find this article that says the daughter has no uterus. That makes more sense...
Update from the post about a preemie miracle - sadly, the little girl died the next morning.