Interference No. 103,029
judgment on the ground of originality of invention in favor of
Barnhouse and Yu.
Kipouras argues in his main brief that Barnhouse did
not suggest to party Kipouras what proportion of copolymer
versus ABS to use nor how to blend or compound the materials.
However, the record is clear that Barnhouse was having special
blends of ECH/EO copolymer made expressly for blending in ABS
with the desired anti-static property in mind. BR21-22;
KR660. There- fore, we do not agree that Barnhouse was not
in possession of the amount of ABS to be mixed with the ECH/EO
copolymer.
Secondly, given a known composition of ECH/EO
copolymer, in our view, the amount of ABS to blend therewith,
and
the appropriate blending techniques to achieve the desired
result--a well documented antistatic specification--were well
within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Note that the
converse is not true. Kipouras and Federl never had a
conception of the
37
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007