Interference No. 105,174 Paper 86
Henkel v. P&G Page 5
10. The “solidified solution or melt region” recited in the ‘434 and ‘578 application
claims corresponds to the “non-compressed portion” of the detergent tablet in
the ‘564 patent claims and is defined in the ‘434 and ‘578 applications as the
region in which ingredient (I) is mainly located (Paper 73, pp. 6, 13, 22 and 30).
11. A “JUDGMENT - NO INTERFERENCE-IN-FACT - Bd. R. 127" (“Judgment,”
Paper 78) was entered sua sponte because the record, including the subject
matter of Henkel’s involved claims, did not appear to teach or suggest a
detergent tablet wherein “the compressed portion dissolves at a faster rate than
the non-compressed portion on a weight by weight basis, measured using a
SOTAX dissolution method” (id., p. 12).
12. Henkel timely filed “HENKEL CORPORATION’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
OF JUDGMENT OF NO INTERFERENCE-IN-FACT” (Paper 79).
13. Henkel pointed out that “P&G’s ‘564 claims had always recited the SOTAX test
and Henkel’s original claims had always recited differential dissolution rates in
the form they are recited in ‘434 claim 41 and ‘578 claim 44" (id., p. 6; see also
pp. 4-5).
14. Henkel argued, in part, that once the interference was declared, a rebuttable
presumption existed that there was no patentable distinction between the
dissolution rates as recited in P&G’s claims and in Henkel’s claims (id.).
15. Upon reconsideration, the sua sponte Judgment was vacated and the parties
were ordered to brief whether an interference-in-fact exists between the claims of
the ‘564 patent and either of the remaining Henkel application claims not shown
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007