Interference No. 103,635
(1) the reaction of trichloroethylene and hydrogen fluoride to produce 1,1,1-
trifluorochloroethane and (2) the reaction of 1,1,1-trifluorochloroethane with hydrogen
fluoride to produce 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane:
carrying out the reaction (2) between 1,1,1-trifluorochloroethane and hydrogen
fluoride at a temperature in the range of 3000C to 4000C,
carrying out the reaction (1) between trichloroethylene and hydrogen fluoride at a
temperature in the range of 1800C to 3000C and
recycling unconverted 1,1,1-trifluoroethane with hydrogen fluoride for further reaction
in the presence of trichloroethylene.
Scott, as movant, bears the burden of proof as to the relief requested. Kubota v.
Shibuya, 999 F.2d 517, 520, 27 USPQ2d 1418, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and 37 C.F.R. §
1.637(a). The burden of proof on a preliminary motion is preponderance of the evidence.
See Kubota, 999 F.2d at 519 n.2, 27 USPQ2d at 1420, n.2 and Schrag v. Strosser, 21
USPQ2d 1025, 1027 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We, as a panel, have carefully reviewed the Scott motion and the arguments therein,
and we find that Scott has not sustained its burden of proof to establish that the Koyama
claim is in violation of the best mode requirement. 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.17
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 provides, in relevant part, that the
specification “shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his
invention". 35 U.S.C. § 112.
17 37 C.F.R. § 1.655 was amended to emphasize that a panel of the Board will resolve the merits of an
interference as a panel without deference to any interlocutory order. The abuse of discretion standard
applies only to interlocutory procedural orders. See Consideration of Interference Rulings at Final Hearing in
Interference Proceedings. Fed.Reg. Vol 64, No. 50 (March 16, 1999) pp. 12900-12902.
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007