Patent Interference No. 103,548
select a water/solvent medium where the solvent is selected from a group of thirteen
possible compounds, including ethanol, from the vast number of mediums
encompassed by Lagrange patent claim 24. That specific question, and the parties
respective positions with respect to it, were addressed supra. We reach the same
conclusion for the reasons discussed supra; 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 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 32 as
corresponding to Count 2.
Lagrange Reissue Claim 33
Lagrange reissue claim 33 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 one of six specific compounds.
To prevail on its motion to designate Lagrange reissue claim 33 as
corresponding to Count 2, Konrad must establish that Lagrange reissue claim 33 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 33 is the same patentable invention as Lagrange patent claim 25 or
Konrad claim 4, whose designation as corresponding to the count it does not dispute.
We will focus on Lagrange patent claim 25 since it is the closest presumed prior art.
65
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007