Patent Interference No. 103,812
Nevertheless, relying on U.S. Patent No. 4,431,793 to Rosenquist (RX 7) and U.S. Patent No.
5,025,081 to Fontana et al. (RX 8), Rosenquist argues that formation of the requisite ester
linkage can be established. Specifically, Rosenquist argues that the prior art shows the reactivity
of a carboxylic acid with a polymer phenol under interfacial reaction conditions, both as a
polycarbonate endcapper (RX 7) and as a comonomer to form polyestercarbonates (RX 8). See
RRB,
pp. 18-19.
Rosenquist’s argument is not persuasive. First, as discussed above, Rosenquist has failed
to establish that an endcapping agent within the scope of the count was formed. Therefore,
based on this record, it is not possible to determine how the product identified as "5249-58"
would have bound to the condensation product in the three interfacial polycarbonate
polymerizations performed by Mr. Butler. Second, assuming arguendo, that the "5249-58"
product was an endcapping agent within the scope of the count, U.S. Patent No. 4,431,793 (RX
7) and U.S. Patent No. 5,025,081 (RX 8) fail to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the requisite ester linkage would have been formed.
Specifically, neither U.S. Patent No. 4,431,793 (RX 7) nor U.S. Patent No. 5,025,081
(RX 8) disclose an endcapping agent within the scope of the count. U.S. Patent No. 4,431,793
(RX 7) discloses a monofunctional polycarbonate endcapper which reacts with a polymer phenol
through an acid substituent. See RX 7, col. 3, lines 43-48 and Table 5. Similarly, U.S. Patent
No. 5,025,081 (RX 8) discloses that a monofunctional agent such as a carboxylic is useful as a
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007