would appear to be Formulation I reported in Table 3 in column 9
of the patent. Both Formulation I and Test 475-119-3 appear to
involve a composition containing:
10% Priolube 3999
62.36% Emery 2964
17.48% Emery 2199 and
10.16% OLOA 340R
with a reported viscosity of 8.07 at 100°C and a -25°C Brookfield
of 2960.
Thus, Morrison has not told us how the evidence in this case
would suggest that post reduction to practice experimentation
took place which is reported in the specification of the patent.
Cf. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, where it had been established that
certain in vivo experimentation took place after an actual
reduction to practice.
b.
Morrison, through counsel, argues that "[t]he Board should
take judicial [sic--official6] notice of the requirements for a
quality patent application. This [a quality patent application?]
requires preliminary search and review of the prior art prior to
filing, writing and necessary revision of the patent
specification and in this case, thorough review by the inventor
and the inventor's supervisory and co-workers who were involved
in this project." Paper 48, page 34; Paper 51, page 11. We
decline to take official notice of the facts suggested by
6 See 37 CFR § 1.671(c)(3).
- 15 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007