Interference No. 103,029
patent to match their experiments. While we do not regard the
request for the certificate of correction as an admission, we
view it as strong circumstantial evidence that the scenario
put forward by Barnhouse may have indeed transpired. For
whatever reason, the inventors, with firsthand knowledge,
i.e., Federl and Kipouras, did not testify. Richeson had no
recollection of the circumstances surrounding the filing of
the request.
It is our finding that this extrinsic evidence
regarding the certificate is highly suggestive of the scenario
that Barnhouse proposes. Nonetheless, in this situation, we
believe, in agreement with the examining group, that the
intrinsic evidence from the Federl patent is sufficient to
have conveyed to one of ordinary skill that Federl and
Kipouras were in possession of the subject matter of an ECH/EO
copolymer for incorporation in an ABS, wherein the ECH/EO were
in a 50:50 ratio on a weight basis. Having weighed all the
evidence, we GRANT Kipouras’ motion for benefit. For
consistency, we will continue to refer to Kipouras as junior
party and Barnhouse as senior party, but this decision will
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007