13. An undated letter from Kutzenco to Dr. Heshmatpour."
None of the documents note receipt or the enclosure of the in-situ invention disclosure.
From our review of the documents, we can identify only three which arguably make reference to,
and thus could indicate that, the "in-situ" process was disclosed to others. The first two are the
November 25, 1997, and January 12,1998, letters from Dr. Heshmatpour to Kutzenco. Both letters
make reference to the in-situ process and indicate that it will be the subject of a second application.
However, neither expressly mention the October 13 invention disclosure. In any event, since these
letters are from Dr. Heshmatpour, they do not provide independent evidence that the October 13,
1997, in-situ invention disclosure was disclosed to others. In addition, even if they are sufficient to
prove the necessary disclosure they are dated after Megy's October 16, 1997, effective filing date
and would therefore not prove a prior conception by Dr. Heshmatpour.
The remaining reference is the January 27, 1998, letter from Kutzenco to Dr. Heshmatpour.
This letter refers to "Draft 4" and includes a listing of areas a) - h) for comment by Dr. Heshmatpour.
After the listing, the letter makes the following additional request:
Can you describe your second invention in a short paragraph?
January 27, 1998, letter from Allan N. Kutzenco to Dr. Heshmatpour, p. 2. Presuming that the
"second invention" is a reference to the in-situ grain refining process, it is not clear from the question
whether Kutzenco was aware of the October 13 invention disclosure or the subj ect matter described
in that document."
With respect to the October 13, 1997, invention disclosure, we have also considered Paper
15 filed during this interference. This paper was accepted as Dr. Heshmatpour's preliminary
statement. It includes Dr. Heshmatpour's explanation of the chronological order of events leading
to the filing of his involved application. The chronology includes preparing a fourteen page "patent
27 Attachment to Paper 53.
28 It appears from the record that Dr. Heshmatpour responded to Kutzenco's inquiry with a letter dated
February 1, 1998. The record, however, does not include Dr. Heshmatpour's response. The copy of the February 1,
1998, letter submitted as Exhibit 32 to the Heshmatpour Declaration, shows a response was made to each of the areas
a) - h). The response to d) and the portion of the response following response h), where the description of the second
invention would logically occur, were redacted. The copy of the February 1, 1998 letter submitted as part of Paper No,
53 only includes the first page of the letter. Thus, we are never informed of Dr. Heshmatpom's response.
_19-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007