Interference No. 101,981
prior conception and reduction to practice and therefore the
issue Qadri raises (QI6) with respect to whether Beyers’
application fails to comply with either the written description
or enablement requirement is moot. However, for the sake of
completeness, we review Qadri’s position on these grounds.
At the outset we repeat what we have stated earlier: the
question is not whether the count is patentable to any of the
parties but whether the claims corresponding to the count are
patentable to them. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184, 26 USPQ2d
at 1059. Qadri’s insistence (QB 75-76) that Beyers’ application
teach the specifics of the orthorhombic I structure is not
relevant to the question of whether Beyers has complied with 35
U.S.C. § 112 since no such limitation is in any of Beyers’
claims. Similarly, Qadri’s criticism of Beyers’ measurements
assumes that the tests must determine the phases according to how
Qadri has defined them.
This is also the problem with Qadri’s (QB 79-83) argument
with respect to other processing steps in Beyers’ application,
including a) heating time and temperature as they affect
homogeneity; b) the omission of additional heating and grinding
steps to yield a single phase composition; c) few details on
preparing a rigid body; d) imprecise cooling/annealing step; and
67
Page: Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007