Interference No. 102,622
have failed to prove that the Misura et al. patent is entitled
to an earlier filing date than the actual filing date of the
application which matured to the patent. We also observe that
if the Misura et al. patent is entitled to either the February
24, 1986, filing date or the November 22, 1985, filing date as
alleged by Rivetti et al., the Misura et al. patent would also
render Rivetti et al.'s claims unpatentable for the reasons
urged by Rivetti et al. with respect to Oates' claims. We
simply observe that Rivetti et al. have not explained why, if
the motion were granted based on Misura et al.'s disclosure,
the same prior art would not render their claims corresponding
to Count 1 unpatentable. Additionally, Rivetti et al.'s5
motion lacks any evidence establishing that the Misura et al.
disclosure would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in
the art to make the compounds claimed by Oates in her involved
patent.
OATES' CASE FOR PRIORITY
In her opposition to Rivetti et al.'s motion for
additional discovery (Paper Number 49), Oates represented
that:
5See 37 C.F.R § 1.637(a), third sentence (1995).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007