Interference 103,685
swelling value which Riggins deemed essential to its inventive
concept (HOB, p. 7):
. . . Riggins goes to some lengths in its Opening Brief
to create the illusion that Riggins had successfully
reduced the “invention” to practice in late February
of 1990 . . . [.] Riggins’ notebook entries and
subsequent experimentation belie this suggestion.
Holsten emphasizes (HOB, p. 8):
In fact, and of material note, the swelling values
reported in the Affidavit had not been determined as
of mid to late March when the experiments were actually
performed so that Riggins could not have ascertained
this “critical” aspect of the claimed invention as of
this time. Riggins Depo. Tr. 137 (lns. 4-17).
Accordingly, Holsten urges that the evidence as a whole denies
Riggins’ allegation that it was first to invent the “invention”
of Count 2 (HOB, pp. 10-11):
In light of Riggins’ testimony in this proceeding,
it becomes apparent that it was not until after April 10,
1990 that Riggins actually pursued the series of test
procedures which led to the so-called discovery involved
in this proceeding that useful “dye diffusion promoting
agents” could be based on aromatic amides and further
provided that the specific amide selected possessed the
properties which Riggins has deemed essential in these
proceedings.
While Holsten espouses the axiom that the “invention”
for which Riggins must establish priority is an invention defined
by the interference count, i.e., Count 2, Holsten argues that
Riggins’ showing does not establish that Riggins conceived of
its method for dyeing fibrous material or fiber of an aromatic
polyamide comprising “contacting the fibers with an aqueous
-37-
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007