Interference 103,685
Moreover, the specifications and product claims of Holsten’s
patent and Holsten’s involved application are consistent with
Riggins’ declaration that 1-10% of residual carrier might be
expected for other aromatic carriers employed in methods for
dyeing and/or FR treating difficult to dye and/or FR treat fibers
and fabrics.
In this case, whether or not persons having ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that the prior art of record
prima facie describes and/or would have reasonably suggested the
identical or substantially identical fiber, fibrous material, or
fabric of the claims of each of the parties designated as
corresponding to the interference count absent Riggins’
declaration and supporting evidence, the understanding becomes
unreasonable in light of all the evidence now before us.
Considered as a whole, the evidence of record predominantly
supports the view that the fiber, fibrous material, and fabric
of the parties’ claims designated as corresponding to Count 2
not only contain carrier residue which persons having ordinary
skill in the art would not have expected in the fiber, fibrous
material, or fabric the prior art describes, but it also supports
the view that the carrier residue present in the fiber, fibrous
material, or fabric each of the parties claim is present in an
amount effective to alter the composition, appearance, and/or
-34-
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007