Interference No. 103,272
testing) under his direction and supervision and that the results are tabulated in HX 5. HR
309 to 315.
Dr. Cooper testified that on July 14, 1987, he prepared the exhibit (HX 4),
titled “DUCTILE/BRITTLE TRANSITION COMPARISON," from the results set forth in HX 5.
HR 30 and 31. He testified that HX 4 is a summary of the ductile tests on the batches
identified in HX 3. He testified that the tests were done at his direction, and that it was his
custom and that of other scientists to rely upon test results as exhibited in a report such as
HX 5. HR 35 to 37. He further testified that the test results show that the para-cumyl phenol
endcapped polycarbonate resin would be an excellent material for molding compact discs,
because the data shows that the resin was at least equivalent and in some cases better
than the para-tertiary butyl phenol endcapped polycarbonate CD grade material used in
compact discs. HR 38 to 41. Dr. Cooper testified that the results were disseminated to
others at General Electric, that their reaction was similar to his, i.e., the para-cumyl phenol
endcapped polycarbonate resin would be an excellent CD grade resin, and that shortly
thereafter the resin was used to mold compact discs. HR 38 to 41.
Opinion re: the Party Heuschen’s Case for Priority
We hold that the party Heuschen’s record establishes actual reduction to
practice at least as of July 14, 1987.
On pages 5 to 11, and 39 to 43, the party Okamoto argues that the
Heuschen record fails to produce or corroborate evidence of priority as to an article of
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007