SCHAENZER et al. V. KNIGHT - Page 5




                Interference No. 105,058                                                                                                             
                Schaenzer v. Knight                                                                                                                  
                         demonstrate that the original designation of claims as corresponding or not                                                 
                         corresponding to the count is wrong. Note that the motion is also not supported                                             
                         by testimony of any technical witness with regard to the significance of any                                                
                         particular feature shared by Schaenzer's patent claims 3-9 and not present in any                                           
                         other claim corresponding to the count, or the state of prior art relative to that                                          
                         particular feature. The motion is unpersuasive as to any reason to change the                                               
                         initial designation of claim correspondence and thus the burden of proof                                                    
                         applicable to a motion has not been satisfied.                                                                              
                                  It is well established that argument of counsel cannot take the place of                                           
                         evidence lacking in the record. Knorr v. Pearson, 671 F.2d 1368, 1373, 213                                                  
                         USPQ 196, 200 (CCPA 1982); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193                                                      
                         USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 854, 195 USPQ 465 (1977); In re                                                  
                         Lindne , 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). That is so                                                       
                         whether or not both parties' counsel jointly make the same argument. The matter                                             
                         of claim correspondence will not be determined merely by the stated opinion                                                 
                         shared by the parties.                                                                                                      
                                  For the foregoing reasons, Joint Preliminary Motion 1 is denied.                                                   

                         19. Also on August 14, 2003, we issued an order for the junior party to show cause                                          
                why judgment should not be entered against the j unior party on the ground that the junior party                                     
                had failed to file a preliminary statement. The junior party has not responded to that order.                                        
                         20. In a telephone conference held on August 20, 2003, between the APJ and                                                  
                respective counsel for the parties, counsel for the junior party asserted (1) that it was not                                        

                necessary for the parties to submit evidence to establish the assertions in the preliminary motion,                                  
                and (2) that the APJ had indicated in an earlier telephone conference call that he ("the APJ")                                       
                would not stand in the way of any settlement agreement between the parties so long as it was                                         
                reasonable. See Summary of Telephone Conference - Paper No. 34.                                                                      




                                                                     - 5 -                                                                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007