Interference No. 102,622 have failed to prove that the Misura et al. patent is entitled to an earlier filing date than the actual filing date of the application which matured to the patent. We also observe that if the Misura et al. patent is entitled to either the February 24, 1986, filing date or the November 22, 1985, filing date as alleged by Rivetti et al., the Misura et al. patent would also render Rivetti et al.'s claims unpatentable for the reasons urged by Rivetti et al. with respect to Oates' claims. We simply observe that Rivetti et al. have not explained why, if the motion were granted based on Misura et al.'s disclosure, the same prior art would not render their claims corresponding to Count 1 unpatentable. Additionally, Rivetti et al.'s5 motion lacks any evidence establishing that the Misura et al. disclosure would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the compounds claimed by Oates in her involved patent. OATES' CASE FOR PRIORITY In her opposition to Rivetti et al.'s motion for additional discovery (Paper Number 49), Oates represented that: 5See 37 C.F.R § 1.637(a), third sentence (1995). 9Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007