Interference No. 103,169
The count, step (iii), states ?imparting biaxial orientation to the film to increase the
transverse strength thereof.” Contrary to the Baars et al. argument, we agree with
Chenevey et al. that the count does not require any specific degree of biaxial orientation;
only an amount necessary to increase the transverse strength. Therefore, giving the count
its broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase, ?imparting biaxial orientation” requires
a showing of some orientation in two axes to increase the transverse strength.
IV.
Dates
Chenevey et al. stipulated that Baars et al. reduced to practice the subject matter of
the count no later than June 30, 1984 (BR12: 1129-1130). Accordingly, Chenevey et al.,
10
in order to prevail, must establish (1) derivation or (2) reduction to practice before June
30, 1984. If Chenevey et al. establishes an earlier reduction to practice, Baars et al. has
raised the issue of abandonment, suppression or concealment.
The Chenevey et al. preliminary statement alleges a conception date of January 23,
1983, a communication date of June, 1984, and a reduction to practice date of October 3,
1983 (Paper No. 8).
10Derivation and priority are distinct concepts. Derivation addresses originality,
i.e., determining who invented the subject matter, while priority focuses on which party first
invented the subject matter of the count. Bosies v. Benedict , 27 F.3d 539, 541-542, 30
USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007