Interference 103,685
After having considered Holsten et al.’s Opening Brief,
Riggins et al. has concluded that most, it not all, of
the facts alleged by Holsten et al. are not in dispute.
Because Riggins et al. was clearly the first to invent
under the facts presented by both parties, Riggins
et al. finds little in Holsten et al.’s Opening Brief
to oppose. However, there are two issues regarding
Holsten et al.’s case, as presented in Holsten et al.’s
Opening Brief, that merit discussion in this Opposition
Brief. First, even if every fact alleged in Holsten
et al.’s Opening Brief is taken as true, Dr. Phillip H.
Riggins . . . would still be the first to invent the
invention of the Count and therefore would be entitled
to a patent for that invention. The second issue
concerns the failure of Holsten et al. in satisfying
the corroboration “rule of reason.”
More particularly with regard to Holsten’s facts, Riggins states
(ROB, p. 1, last para.):
In Holsten et al.’s Opening Brief, Holsten et al.
state that, no later than April 10, 1990, Mr. Moses
Smith . . . at the direction of Dr. John R. Holsten
. . . and Mr. Nigel E. Neely . . . used N,N-diethyl
(m-toluamide), benzanilide, and N,N-dimethylbenzamide
to perform dyeing experiments. It is further stated
by Holsten et al. that this experimentation constituted
a reduction to practice of the invention of the Count.
Riggins does not dispute Holsten’s findings with regard to its
reduction to practice of subject matter encompassed by Count 2
because Riggins maintains that it was first to actually reduce to
practice subject matter encompassed by Count 2 (ROB, pp. 2-3;
footnotes omitted):
The party Riggins et al. does not take issue with
Holsten et al.’s alleged reduction to practice since,
even if the reduction did in fact occur, it was not
until long after Dr. Riggins’ own reduction to practice
of the invention of the Count. . . . .
-47-
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007