Interference No. 103,950
Nardella’s preliminary Motion 1 is directed to the
obviousness of the subject matter of claims 4 through 16. As
such, Nardella has the burden of establishing that the
teachings of the prior art (assuming that Nardella’s claims 35
or 37 are prior art) would have suggested the subject matter
of claims 4 through 16 to a person of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regard to Tsuruta’s claim 4, Nardella has discussed
only the first and second deforming means of claim 4.
Nardella has not shown that all the elements of claim 4 would
have been obvious in view of Nardella’s claim 35. Notably,
Nardella has not shown that a “drive means for selectively
driving said first and second deforming means,” would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In
fact, Nardella’s motion does not mention the drive means. 2
features are disposed in the insertion section.
2This is a problem we find throughout Nardella’s
preliminary Motion No. 1. Nardella has discussed some of the
differences between the claim recitations and Nardella’s
claims 35 or 37 but not all of the differences. However,
Nardella is under a burden to address each element of claims 4
through 16 of the Tsuruta patent in order to establish that
these claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007