Interference 103,482
Ewen moved (Paper No. 22) to be accorded benefit of the
July 15, 1988, filing date of Application 07/220,007, which
issued January 9, 1990, as U.S. Patent 4,892,851 (EE I). The
APJ denied Ewen’s motion (Paper No. 61). Citing the legal
standard espoused in Weil v. Fritz, 572 F.2d 856, 865-66 n.16,
196 USPQ 600, 608 n.16 (CCPA 1978); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d
1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and Hyatt
v. Boone,
146 F.3d 1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
the APJ held that benefit of an earlier application for
purposes of priority requires that the proposed benefit
application satisfy the written description and enablement
requirements of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for at
least one embodiment within the scope of the interference
count (Paper No. 61, p. 2). The APJ found (Paper No. 61, pp.
2-3):
The Ewen 851 specification does not provide a written
description of an embodiment falling within count 2.
In particular, Ewen 851 does not describe (1) the
formation of either syndio-isoblock polymer having
molecular chains in which syndiotactic and isotactic
sequences are present and the sequence length is 3
to 50 monomer units or hemiisotactic olefin polymer
or (2) a metallocene compound meeting the requisites
of the count.
114
Page: Previous 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007