Interference No. 103,141
Jin claim 1. ¶10. Sato reaches this conclusion based on the
unpredictable nature of the superconductor materials art.
¶¶10, 11. Even if we were to accept all statements in the
declaration as true, and disregard completely the evidence
provided in the opposition declaration, the Sato declaration
fails to make out a case for lack of enablement. The
declaration fails to address whether the experimentation
required to practice the invention would have been undue.
While the declaration discusses experimentation in ¶¶11, 12,
no analysis is provided as to whether the amount of
experimentation required would have been undue in this art.
Consequently, it is our conclusion of law that motion 10 fails
on its face to satisfy the burden on Sawada, the moving party.
Our independent analysis comports with the analysis
of Judge Smith. Motion 10 stands properly DENIED.
The Denial of Sawada Preliminary Motion 11 to Add a Proposed
Count E to the Interference
26
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007