Interference 103,685
Count 2 of this interference read (HX 1, col. 14, l. 61-67):
79. A fibrous material or fiber of an aromatic
polyamide that has been dyed with a dyebath comprising
a mixture of a dye diffusion promoting agent and a
dye soluble or dispersed with said agent, said agent
comprising an aromatic amide having 7 to 14 carbon
atoms capable of increasing the swelling value at
least 1.5%.
81. A fibrous material or fiber of an aromatic
polyamide that has been treated with a flame retardant
bath comprising a mixture of a flame retardant diffusion
agent and a flame retardant soluble or dispersed with
said agent, said agent comprising an aromatic amide
having 7 to 14 carbon atoms capable of increasing the
swelling value at least 1.5%.
If the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has good reason to
believe that a dyed fiber or fabric as described in a prior art
reference is identical or substantially identical to dyed fiber
or fabric claimed by a party to this interference, the PTO may
require proof that the party’s claimed product and the prior art
product are not necessarily the same, inherently identical, or
substantially identical, and/or the party’s claimed product would
not have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art
in view of the prior art teaching. Where the products a party
claims and the prior art describes reasonably appear to be
identical or substantially identical, the PTO may require proof
that they are not. “Whether the rejection is based on
‘inherency’ under 35 USC 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under
35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the
-27-
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007