Patent Interference No. 103,548
require 0.01%-8% by weight of the indoline. However, only the 1% level has been
tested. Also, only the hydrobromide salt of C0 with only five of the 13 claimed solvents
were tested: ethanol, propylene glycol, propylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethylene
glycol monobutyl ether and methyl lactate. According to Cotteret (LR 48, lines 17-20),
the other indolines were tested only with ethanol. The evidence is insufficient to support
a finding of unexpected results that would overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness.
After careful review of the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude
that a prima facie case of obviousness has been made out and not overcome by the
objective evidence of nonobviousness. Konrad has met its burden of proof with respect
to its motion and, accordingly, we GRANT Konrad Preliminary Motion 7 with respect to
designating reissue claim 31 as corresponding to Count 2.
Lagrange Reissue Claim 32
Lagrange reissue claim 32 is directed to a tinctorial composition comprising an
indoline and medium, as set forth in Lagrange reissue claim 30, and further limits the
indoline to the hydrochloride or hydrobromide salt.
To prevail on its motion to designate Lagrange reissue claim 32 as
corresponding to Count 2, Konrad must establish that Lagrange reissue claim 32 is the
same patentable invention as any other claim whose designation as corresponding to
the count it does not dispute. In that regard, Konrad seeks to establish that Lagrange
reissue claim 32 is the same patentable invention as Lagrange patent claim 24 or
63
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007