Patent Interference No. 103,812
This is especially true where Rosenquist has failed to establish, in the first instance, that the
"5249-58" product is an endcapper within the scope of the count.
V.
Finally, senior party Scholl argues that junior party Rosenquist has failed to establish that
Dr. Rosenquist contemporaneously appreciated that an endcapped polycarbonate resin having
the ester linkage required by the count was produced by Mr. Butler during the period from
February 8 through February 10, 1994. See SB, pp. 10-11. See Breen v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d
1398, 1401, 176 USPQ 519, 521 (CCPA 1973) (a reduction to practice cannot be established
nunc pro tunc). Relying on Dr. Rosenquist's testimony in paragraph 12 on pages 9 through 10 of
the Rosenquist record and Rosenquist exhibit 9, junior party Rosenquist argues that Dr.
Rosenquist did in fact appreciate an invention within the scope of the count prior to Scholl's
effective filing date. See RRB, pp. 19 and 25.
Dr. Rosenquist's testimony at paragraph 12 of pages 9 through 10 of the Rosenquist
record refers to an invention disclosure letter (RX 9). The invention disclosure letter is said to
exemplify Dr. Rosenquist’s recognition that (RR, pp. 9-10, paragraph 12):
[T]he UV-acid from T-840 (i.e. product 5249-58) provides an improved
covalently bondable UV stabilizer for polycarbonate resins, bondable by reaction
of its carboxylic acid functionality with the hydroxy functionality of the bis-
phenol component of the polycarbonate.
According to the invention disclosure letter (second page of RX 9):
The invention consists of a new polycarbonate resin composition with some or all
of its end groups consisting of the ester derived from a bisphenol-A in the resin
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007