Patent Interference No. 103,548
does not dispute. Konrad argues that "Lagrange's reissue claim 30 defines the same
patentable invention as Lagrange's original and reissue claim 4, which are designated
as corresponding to Count 2 and/or Konrad's claims 4-7 in view of Goldemberg [Robert
Goldemberg, J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem 10, 1959, pp. 291-306] or Goldemberg et al.
[Robert Goldemberg et al, J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem 19, 1968, pp. 423-445]. Again, the
solvents are disclosed in Parent '404, Grollier '500, French '061, GB 2,207,443 and U.S.
Patent 4,885,006." KB 25.
The facts (see table infra) show that Lagrange reissue claim 30 and Lagrange
patent claim 4 are identically worded except:
· Lagrange reissue claim 30 is directed to a tinctorial composition in a medium
suitable for dyeing wherein the medium suitable for dyeing is a water/solvent
mixture and wherein the solvent of the water/solvent mixture ... .
· Lagrange patent claim 4 is directed to a tinctorial composition in a medium
suitable for dyeing ... [per claim 3: wherein the medium suitable for dyeing is an
aqueous medium of water or a water/solvent mixture...].
Lagrange reissue claim 30 provides for a composition comprising a medium of a
water/solvent mixture and Lagrange patent claim 4, whose designation as
corresponding to the count Konrad does not dispute, provides for a composition
comprising either of (1) an aqueous medium of water or (2) an aqueous medium of a
water/solvent mixture. Lagrange patent claim 4's second alternative medium (i.e., an
aqueous medium of a water/solvent mixture, which, for all intents and purposes, is a
water/solvent mixture) is the same as the medium provided for by Lagrange reissue
claim 30. There is no difference between the two. They both describe a water/solvent
mixture. Given that the compositions of these two claims are otherwise the same, we
56
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007