Interference No. 102,622
we agree with Rivetti et al.'s broad characterization of
Bralley et al.'s disclosure as "generic" to or encompassing
the species claimed by Oates, nothing in Bralley et al.
suggests that polymers as claimed by Oates would have been
expected to possess high refractive indices which make them
especially suitable for optical quality plastic. We also
find, assuming, arguendo, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to make Oates' claimed compounds
because they were the next adjacent homologues to certain
compounds disclosed in Bralley et al., that there is no
suggestion in Bralley et al. of what reactants could be used
to prepare such hypothetical compounds. A reference may not
render a particular compound obvious in the sense of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 absent a disclosure which would have enabled a person of
ordinary skill in the art to prepare said particular compound.
We have also carefully considered anew Rivetti et
al.'s motion for judgment based on the patent to Misura et al.
but find that, on its face, the patent is not prior art with
respect to Oates because the application from which it issued
was filed on May 19, 1988, after Oates' effective filing date
and because the Misura et al. patent issued on September 25,
1990, after Oates' involved patent issued. Rivetti et al.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007