Interference 103,685
embodiment of any one of the claims of Riggins’ involved
application, Holsten’s involved application, or Holsten’s patent
which corresponds to Count 2 of this interference no later than
March 25, 1990, i.e., if Riggins has shown that it constructed an
embodiment meeting all the limitations of the interference count
and contemporaneously appreciated that that embodiment worked,
priority of invention for Count 2 of this interference must be
awarded against party Holsten. If Riggins has established that
it actually reduced to practice an embodiment of Count 2 no later
than March 25, 1990, the question whether Holsten’s evidence
of conception and/or reduction to practice of the invention of
Count 2 is adequately corroborated is moot.
(3) Riggins case for priority
Riggins’ Exhibit 22 (RX 22), particularly pages 28, 29
and 31 of Riggins’ laboratory “Book No. 1664" of the “Project
. . . Nomex Dyeing,” and Riggins’ Exhibit 26 (RX 26), the
handwritten letter from H. Riggins to Ben Triplett, constitute
Riggins’ primary support for its being first to actually reduce
to practice the invention of Count 2. Page 28 of Riggins Exhibit
22 is dated “2/16/90" at its top left and signed and dated
“Howell Riggins 2/22/90" at its bottom left. The page was
witnessed and dated “Penny E. Haith 5/4/90" at its bottom right.
Page 28 reads in pertinent part (RX 22, p. 28):
-51-
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007