Interference No. 103,534
assembly which comprises both a focusing lens assembly and a dual de-centered corrector lens
assembly as set forth in the count.
With respect to the issue of best mode, Phillips contends the senior party’s patent
application only broadly discloses a collimator assembly with a non-specific focusing lens
assembly. Accordingly, it is urged that at the time of filing, the senior party’s application failed to
set forth the best mode contemplated for carrying out the invention.
Owen’s Position
As to the issues of enablement, written description and best mode, Owen asserts
that Phillips failed to meet its burden of proof because it submitted no timely evidence in support
of its preliminary motions.
With respect to the issue of enablement, Owen contends that requiring that the
lens prescription variables be present in the specification of the involved application in order to
satisfy the enablement requirement is tantamount to turning the specification into a blueprint.
The senior party states that none of the claims corresponding to the count requires a lens
prescription for any lens element and that its involved application has not been shown to deviate
from standard practice of drafting optical patents.
Concerning the issue of written description, Owen asserts that none of the claims
requires any specific lens prescriptions and contends that the junior party’s position that the
involved application does not describe a collimator assembly with a dual de-centered corrector
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007