Interference No. 103,029
group. A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in the group13
found that there was no descriptive support for the change.
Apparently, the SPE was of the view that the intrinsic
evidence in the specification would have more properly
supported an interpretation that the example was directed to a
copolymer of ECH/EO that was 50:50 on a weight basis.
Barnhouse argues that the request for a certificate
of correction is an admission that the example in the Federl
specification was 50:50 ECH/EO on a molar basis. Barnhouse
states that such an admission should be overturned only by
clear and convincing evidence. Barnhouse posits a situation
wherein in January 1986 the Federl application was in Issue
Branch awaiting payment of the issue fee when the Non-Analysis
Agreement expired. At that time, Barnhouse speculates,14
Federl and Kipouras were free to analyze the Hydrin 200
samples. Or perhaps they inquired of Goodrich personnel the
composition of the Hydrin 200. At any rate, they moved to
change the disclosure of the Federl
13 Federl patent file wrapper Paper No. 8.
14 See page 21, infra.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007