Interference No. 104,733
Page No. 19
interference-in-fact. Id. (bold emphasis added). In particular, the CCPA noted that
both parties carried out the same process in which a conjugated diene material reacted
with impurities according to the Diels-Alder reaction. Further, there was no dispute that
the cyclopentadiene of Aelony and the eight conjugated dienes of Arni were all common
Diels-Alderdienes. Id.
The decision in Aelony denied a motion for no interference-in-fact where two
parties were claiming patentably indistinct inventions. Specifically, in deciding the
question of no interference-in-fact, the CCPA focused its attention on whether or not the
parties claims were patentably distinct from each other. Where the claims of the
parties are not patentably distinct from each other, the parties are claiming the same
inventive concept and it is understood that only one patent should issue.
3. Case v. CPC Intemational, Inc.
Case involved an appeal from a decision of a district court in a civil action under
35 USC §146 upholding the award of priority to CPC International, Inc., ("CPC") in an
interference proceeding in the USPTO. The subject matter in the interference was
directed to polyether polyols that consisted essentially of oxyalkylated polyalcohols and
oxyalkylated polysaccha rides. Case v. CPC Intl, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 747, 221 USPQ
196, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The interference was provoked by CPC. To provoke the interference, CPC
copied Case's patented claims. Of note, Case's patented claims specified that an
oxyalkylated polyalcohol was present in an amount of 10 to 95% by weight and that an
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007