Patent Interference No. 103,548
Anticipation
Looking at Lagrange patent claim 5 as the presumed prior art, Lagrange patent
claim 5, is like Lagrange reissue claim 31, also directed to a tinctorial composition
comprising an indoline and, like Lagrange reissue claim 31, it also further contains an
additive. Lagrange patent claim 5 provides a list of 12 possible additives which
identically includes all eleven of the possible additives set forth in Lagrange reissue
claim 31. Consistent therewith, Konrad argues (KB 25), presumably for the purpose of
establishing anticipation, that claim 31 distinguishes from patent claim 5 only in that
“fatty amide” is absent from the list of additives
However, Lagrange reissue claim 31 is not otherwise identical to Lagrange
patent claim 5. Lagrange reissue claim 31 differs from Lagrange patent claim 5 in
describing a particular medium. Lagrange reissue claim 31 describes a tinctorial
composition, including the indoline and an additive, comprising a medium containing a
water/solvent mixture where the solvent is selected from a group of thirteen possible
compounds, whereas Lagrange patent claim 5 is directed broadly to employing any
medium. Given the infinite number of possible medium materials encompassed by
Lagrange patent claim 5, one of ordinary skill cannot conclude that it teaches selecting
any one of the thirteen possible mediums described by Lagrange reissue claim 31. The
requisite identity does not exist and, accordingly, the Lagrange reissue claim 31
composition is not anticipated by Lagrange patent claim 5.
Looking at Konrad claim 4 as the presumed prior art, Konrad claim 4 is, like
Lagrange reissue claim 31, also directed to a tinctorial composition comprising an
58
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007