Patent Interference No. 103,812
Second, whether Rosenquist used phosgene or a phosgene derivative in the interfacial
polycarbonate polymerizations on February 8 through February 10, 1994, is not dispositive in
this case. For the reasons set forth above, Rosenquist has failed to establish that the "UV acid
endcap," identified as "5249-58," was 3-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-
hydroxy-benzene-propanoic acid and was chemically bound to the condensation product by an
ester linkage through the acid substituent of the phenolic substituent of the endcap.
Finally, the first alternative of proposed Count A requires the chain terminator to
chemically bond to the polycarbonate by an ester linkage through the acid substituent of the
phenolic substituent of the chain terminator. See "Count A" in the Appendix attached to
Rosenquist's brief. Therefore, even if this panel were to grant Rosenquist's motion, Rosenquist
has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, an actual reduction to practice of an
invention within the scope of proposed Count A for the same reasons that he failed to establish
an actual reduction to practice of an invention within the scope of Count 2.
Judgment
Judgment as to Count 2, the sole count at issue in this interference, is entered against the
junior party Niles R. Rosenquist. Niles R. Rosenquist is not entitled to claims 1 through 5 of
U.S. Patent No. 5,523,379 which have been designated as corresponding to the count.
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007