Interference 103,685
Nevertheless, Holsten argues that (1) Riggins has not shown
prior reduction to practice of an embodiment meeting all the
limitations of the invention defined by Riggins’ involved
application and claims thereof corresponding to Count 2, and
(2) Riggins cannot establish prior reduction to practice of the
invention of Count 2 by showing prior reduction to practice of
subject matter which is unpatentable to Riggins. As best we
can ascertain from all evidence, Holsten’s first argument is
supported by substantial evidence of record. Unfortunately for
Holsten, however, the law does not require Riggins to establish
prior reduction to practice of an invention it claims in order
to establish that it first invented subject matter defined by
Count 2 of this interference. The law merely requires Riggins to
establish that it was first to carry out a process or make a
product defined by the interference count and contemporaneously
recognized success. Having shown that it had used a process
meeting all the limitations of Claim 1 of Holsten’s involved
application corresponding to Count 2 of this interference to
successfully produce a dyed product meeting all the limitations
of Claim 43 of Holsten’s involved application corresponding to
Count 2 of this interference before March 22, 1990, Riggins has
shown that it was first to invent the subject matter defined by
Count 2 of this interference. Whether or not the subject matter
-63-
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007