dishwasher. Indeed, Schliwka’s tests indicated that at least one of Henkel’s sample tablets had a melt region that did not dissolve at all during a prewash cycle in which the compressed region had lost 8 out of 29 grams. Without further measurement, this is sufficient to demonstrate that Henkel made a tablet meeting the limitations of the count. Moreover, Schliwka’s observations, coupled with the record evidence of his interactions with Holderbaum, suffice to demonstrate appreciation of the different dissolution rates. As a matter of law, we do not require that a junior party in an interference demonstrate that it recognized the exact language of the ultimate count—only the subject matter of the invention. See Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). This is not a case in which there is a
holding that there was sufficient appreciation when an inventor recognized a process in terms of codonsgroups of three nucleotidesinstead of the ultimately claimed nucleotides holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement holding that change in composition of the court was not a bar to a grant of rehearing particularly when there was a three to two division on the original opinion holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law