Interference 103,685
same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability
to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art
products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-1256, 195 USPQ 430,
433-434 (CCPA 1977)(footnote omitted).
Here, the specification of Riggins’ patent teaches that
“dye and FR [(fire retardant)] fixation [was obtained] in this
process using dye diffusion promoting agent concentrations of
10 to 120 percent on weight of fabric“ (HX 1, col. 5, l. 25-27).
However, the specification of Riggins’ patent also teaches that
“[r]esidual agent is removed by scouring at the boil” (HX 1,
col. 5, l. 33-36), and “[a]fter dyeing, the fabric was rinsed in
warm tap water, and then scoured in fresh tap water at 1000O C.[4]
. . . for 15 minutes” (HX 1, col. 6, l. 59-61). Nevertheless,
the specification of Riggins’ U.S. Patent 5,306,312 (HX 1)
expressly states (HX 1, col. 3, l. 24-57; emphasis added):
Disclosed is a process for dyeing or flame
retardant treating, or if preferred, both dying and
simultaneously improving the flame-resistant properties
of poly(m-phenyleneisophthalamide) fibers. The process
includes the steps of introducing the fiber into a fiber
dyeing solution containing a tinctorial amount of at
least one dye in combination with selected dye diffusion
promoters as defined below, and optionally, at least one
flame retardant . . . then heating the fiber and solution
at a temperature and for a sufficient period of time to
4
Note a Certificate of Correction for Riggins et al.,
U.S. Patent 5,306,312, dated April 26, 1994, replaced “1000O C.”
at Column 6, line 60, thereof with -100O C.-.
-28-
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007