Interference No. 103,169
appears that solution processing of PBT can be effectively carried out in PPA solution. ...
that PPA will be used in the processing methods proposed in subsection 2.3, since it is
the polymerization medium for PBT and thus requires no additional solvation procedures.”
(Eagles BR 3:329). In addition, Lusignea testified that the polymerization mixture was well
known in 1981 to be better than the mixture of polymer and solvent. (BX IIII, CR 21: 2257-
2258). Baars et al. was aware that PBT was provided in dope form where the polymer is
17
dissolved in PPA. Davis BR 1: 80; and Guzdar BR: 360, 378-9. We find that
corroborators Guzdar and Eagles confirm the content and dates of these exhibits.
It is our view that the testimony of the coinventors, corroborated by the Baars et al.
witnesses, combined with the exhibits of Baars et al., are sufficient to establish that Baars
et al. conceived of the use of the polymerization mixture, PBT/PPA, in their process no
later than January 31, 1983.
Chenevey et al. also argue that Baars et al. were neophytes in the field and that they
had no idea whether their proposed process would work for its intended purpose. We find
this argument to be nonpersuasive. An inventor need not know that his invention will work
for conception to be complete. An inventor need only show that he had the idea; the
discovery that an invention actually works is part of its reduction to practice. Burroughs, 40
17 Baars et al. state that “at that time PBT was only supplied in the form of its
polymerization mixture” (BB page 129, lines 4-5). This statement is not challenged by
Chenevey et al.
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007