Interference No. 105,174 Paper 86
Henkel v. P&G Page 6
to be unpatentable (“DECISION - REHEARING - Bd. R. 125(c),” Paper 81, pp. 2-
3).
16. Each party was to address specifically whether the subject matter of any of
P&G’s involved claims anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter,
including the expressly recited less than 40% surface area and 40% volume
limitations, of Henkel’s ‘434 application claim 41 or ‘578 application claim 44,
respectively, and whether the subject matter of either of Henkel’s ‘434
application claim 41 or ‘578 application claim 44 anticipates or renders obvious
the subject matter, including the expressly recited differential dissolution rate “on
a weight by weight basis, using a SOTAX dissolution test method,” of any of
P&G’s ‘564 patent claims (id.).
17. Henkel timely filed “HENKEL CORPORATION’S PAPER IN SUPPORT OF
INTERFERENCE-IN-FACT” (Paper 82).
18. P&G timely filed “THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY’S MISCELLANEOUS
MOTION 7" (Paper 83) wherein it argued that there is no interference-in-fact.
19. Although both parties were authorized to file oppositions (Paper 81, p. 3), only
Henkel filed “HENKEL OPPOSITION 7" (Paper 85).
20. The parties relied, in part, on declarations by Drs. Blasey (“Blasey II,” Ex 2029)
and Scheper (“Scheper II,” Ex 1021).
21. Both Drs. Blasey and Scheper testified that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007