Interference 103,685
products claimed by the parties to this interference from the
products the prior art would have described or reasonably
suggested to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
However, we need not consider whether a prima facie case of
unpatentability of each party’s claimed product under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102/103 has been established over the cited prior art and/or
whether the Rule 641 Order (Paper No. 83) for additional evidence
in support of the patentability of each party’s claimed product
was warranted because of the evidence and arguments presented in
Riggins et al.’s Combined Paper Under Rule 1.641 and Preliminary
Motion No. 9 (Paper No. 99).
The evidence Riggins submitted in response to the Rule 641
Order (Paper No. 83) includes the following testimony of
Dr. Riggins (Declaration of Phillip H. Riggins, Ph.D., dated
October 22, 1997 (RX 29))(RX 29, p. 2, para. 2-5):
2. When aromatic polyamide (commonly known as
“aramid”) fibers and fabrics are dyed with an aromatic
amide carrier a residual amount of the aromatic amide
carrier remains in the fibers and fabrics after dyeing
and scouring.
3. In October 1997, I conducted experiments to
demonstrate that residual aromatic amide carrier remains
in aromatic polyamide fibers and fabrics, such as Nomex,
after dyeing with the carrier and scouring. As indicated
in my write-up of my experiments (attached as Riggins et
al. Exhibit No. 29(a)), all aromatic amide carriers
(DEB, DEET, DIP) showed residual carrier in the Nomex
aramid fiber after dyeing and scouring.
-31-
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007