Interference 103,685
In an effort to establish a case of priority even
arguably antedating Holsten et al.’s conception and
reduction to practice, Riggins attempts in its Opening
Brief to abandon the entire theory of its invention
as previously advocated throughout these proceedings,
beginning with the preliminary motion period. In
particular, Riggins has repeatedly espoused the theory
throughout this action that its invention consists of
the discovery that a successful “dye diffusion promoting
agent” for use in dyeing aramid fabrics possesses two
distinct and essential characteristics.
. . . Riggins has repeatedly advanced the proposition
that a successful dye diffusion agent must have between
7-14 carbon atoms and provide a so-called “swelling
value” on the fabric of at least 1.5% as defined in
Riggins’ patent application. . . . .
. . . . .
Accordingly, by Riggins’ own admission, it was not
until some time in the period between April 16 and May 7,
1990 that Riggins actually conceived and reduced his
invention to practice . . . .
Holsten explains further (HOB, p. 5, last para.):
The invention of the Count involved in this
interference relates to the use of aromatic amides
as dyeing assists in the dyeing of aramid fabrics.
. . . [I]t was not until after the events recited
in paragraph 31 of Riggins Affidavit that Riggins
actually demonstrated to his satisfaction that
aromatic amides could be used for this purpose,
consistent with the limitations with respect to
the number of carbon atoms and requisite so-called
swelling value which the inventor deemed essential
to the concept.
According to Holsten, Riggins could not have reduced the
“invention” of Count 2 to practice until Riggins recognized the
limitations in Riggins’ claims designated as corresponding to
Count 2 with respect to the number of carbon atoms and so-called
-36-
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007