Interference No. 105,174 Paper 86
Henkel v. P&G Page 9
C. Summary of P&G’s position
P&G’s argument for no interference-in-fact relies on a single difference between
the parties’ claims relating to the dissolution rate. Henkel’s claims broadly require that
“the dissolution rate of the compressed region is greater than the dissolution rate of the
solidified solution or melt region” while P&G’s claims more specifically require that “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.” P&G argues
that when Henkel’s claims are taken as prior art, the generic limitation does not
anticipate or suggest the specific method for determining the dissolution rates required
by P&G’s claims.3
As part of its argument, P&G points out that neither Henkel’s ‘578 nor ‘434
application expressly defines the phrase “dissolution rate” (Paper 83, p. 16, ll. 11-12
and p. 17, ll. 14-15). P&G then states: “As such, one skilled in the art must construe
the term in light of the specification” (id., p. 16, ll. 12-13 and p. 17, ll. 15-16). P&G then
asserts that Henkel’s specifications provide a number of possible constructions for the
phrase, i.e., (1) that “dissolution rate” means “measuring the effect of one region of the
tablet to the dissolution of the tablet as a whole” (id., p. 16, ll. 15-17 and p. 17, ll. 17-19,
original emphasis); (2) that the phrase means “measuring the total dissolution time of
one region and comparing it to the total time of a second region as the tablet as a whole
3 Im plicit in P&G’s argum ent is that the method of determ ining the dissolution rate is a substantive
lim itation on the scope of the subject matter claim ed. In other words, we understand P&G’s argum ent to
assert im plicitly that there are detergent tablets that would meet Henkel’s dissolution rates lim itation, but
would be excluded by P&G’s lim itation requiring that the dissolution rates be determ ined “on a weight by
weight basis, measured using a SOTAX dissolution test method.” W e express no view on the correctness
of this assertion and proceed under the assum ption that it is correct.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007