Interference 103,685
As we understand Holsten’s written arguments (HOB (Paper
No. 124) and HRB (Paper No. 126)) and Holsten’s oral presentation
at final hearing, Holsten argues that Riggins cannot establish
priority of invention for the subject matter defined by Count 2
before the date Riggins both (1) recognized that dye diffusion
promoting agents comprising an aromatic amide having 7 to 14
carbon atoms capable of increasing the swelling value at least
1.5%” effectively promote dyeing aramid fiber or fabric, and
(2) showed that at least one such dye diffusion promoting
aromatic amide having 7 to 14 carbon atoms which increases the
swelling value of aramid fabric at least 1.5% effectively
promotes dyeing of an aramid fiber or fabric. In other words,
Riggins cannot show that it reduced to practice subject matter
defined by Count 2 before the date Riggins first conceived of the
full scope of the invention encompassed by its claims designated
as corresponding to Count 2 and proved that a species of the dye
diffusion promoting agents defined by the claims of Riggins’
involved application effectively promotes dyeing of aramid fiber
or fabric.
Holsten presumes that Riggins cannot establish priority of
invention with respect to the subject matter defined by Count 2
absent a showing that Riggins conceived of the invention defined
by the claims in Riggins involved application. Since Riggins’s
-40-
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007