Patent Interference No. 103,548
during cross-examination (KR 96-99). Konrad filed an opposition to this motion (paper
no. 97, filed February 20, 1998) to which Lagrange filed a reply (paper no. 101, filed
March 20, 1998). The motion is dismissed because we have not relied upon this
Declaration in our decision.
Under other circumstances, the motion would have been denied to the extent that it
is based on the contention that Hoffkes did not personally supervise the synthesis of C0,
C1 and C2 dihydroxyindolines and therefore any results recorded by him comparing their
dyeing ability is inadmissible hearsay. The argument, as we see it, is that Lagrange
objects to Konrad's explanation of the behavior of chemicals they did not synthesize but
were provided to them by another manufacturer (i.e., Bitterfield Chemical Company).
Plainly, Konrad is not required to synthesize every chemical in their formulations. We
agree with Konrad that Young v. Bullitt, 233 F.2d 347, 110 USPQ 55 (CCPA 1956)
applies. "The question generally is whether, when all the circumstances are considered
together, there is a reasonable certainty as to the identity of the product." Id. at 58. It is not
required that the indolines be "commercial products produced in accordance with strict
guidelines and quality control procedures employed in commercial operations' (Lagrange
Reply, paper no. 101, p. 3). It is Lagrange's burden to show that it was not reasonable for
one to characterize the materials Konrad received from Bitterfield as those indolines
stipulated in Hoffkes I. We note that Lagrange did not question Hoffkes' assertion (KR 41)
that a "Bitterfield Chemical Company" in "Bitterfield", Germany, existed at the time of the
indoline synthesis (i.e., 1992), that Bitterfield was a manufacturer of indolines, and/or that
Bitterfield had a relationship with Henkel to synthesize indolines. This is the type of
72
Page: Previous 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007