Interference 103,685
claims, and the subject matter Riggins appears to regard as its
invention, require a dye diffusion promoting aromatic amide
having 7 to 14 carbon atoms which increases the swelling value of
aramid fabric at least 1.5%, Holsten argues that Riggins did not,
and could not, establish priority of invention with respect to
the subject matter defined by Count 2 before the date Holsten
conceived of the invention it claims and reduced it to practice.
We disagree. At oral argument at Final Hearing on October 15,
2001, Holsten’s counsel urged that Riggins cannot establish
priority for subject matter encompassed by Count 2 which is
unpatentable to Riggins, i.e., subject matter defined by each
claim of Holsten’s involved application or Holsten’s patent
alternatively corresponding to Count 2. Again, we disagree.
Riggins seeks to establish priority of the invention of
Count 2 of this interference. Count 2 is drawn alternatively to
each of one or more claims of Riggins’ involved application or
each of one or more claims of Holsten’s involved application or
each of one or more claims of Holsten’s patent, i.e., Count 2
is directed to subject matter defined by Claim 1 or 9 or 13 or
69 or 70 or 71 or 77 or 78 or 79 or 80 or 81 of Riggins’ involved
application or to subject matter defined by Claim 1 or 12 or 15
or 23 or 24 or 35 or 43 or 52 of Holsten’s involved application
or to subject matter defined by Claim 1 or 9 or 10 or 14 or 15 or
-41-
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007