Interference No. 105,174 Paper 86
Henkel v. P&G Page 2
I. Introduction
Following the “Decision - Rehearing - Bd. R. 125(c)” (Paper 81, filed 31 March
2005), the parties, Henkel Corporation (“Henkel”) and The Procter & Gamble Company
(“P&G”), were ordered to brief whether an interference-in-fact exists between any of the
claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,399,654 and either of the Henkel application claims not
shown to be unpatentable.
II. Findings of Fact (FF)
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. The subject matter of the interference is defined by one count (Paper 1, p. 6):
Count 1
A tablet according to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,339,654
or
A tablet according to U.S. Application No. 09/446,434.
2. Claim 1 of the ‘654 patent reads:
A detergent tablet comprising a compressed portion and a non-
compressed portion wherein:
a) said compressed portion comprises a mould and dissolves at a
faster rate than said non-compressed portion on a weight by weight basis,
measured using a SOTAX dissolution test method;
b) said non-compressed portion is in solid, gel or liquid form;
c) said non-compressed portion is delivered onto said mould of
said compressed portion; and
d) said non-compressed portion is partially retained within said
mould; and wherein said non-compressed portion is affixed to said
compressed portion by forming a coating over the non-compressed layer
to secure it to the compressed portion or by hardening.
3. The SOTAX dissolution test method measures the average weight of each
portion which dissolves per minute in deionized water (Ex 2001, c. 10, l. 62 - c.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007