Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
Even if there had been no opposition from Tanaka, Hoshino’s
Motion H2 should have been denied by the APJ, as it was. The
APJ made clear that he did not consider the Larky and Fisher
declarations accompanying Tanaka’s opposition to Hoshino’s
Motion H2. The lack of a prima facie showing in Hoshino’s
Motion H2 is determined independent of any evidentiary showing
by Tanaka. The lack of specific factual basis for the
conclusions expressed in Mr. Utagawa’s first declaration, the
vagueness of what constitutes "substantial" improvement, and
the lack of showing for "unexpectedness," all serve to support
the APJ’s determination regardless of anything said in the
Larky and Fisher
declarations. We also agree with the following finding of the
APJ (Motions Decision at 8):
The APJ also finds that all of the alleged
substantial improvements in Ken Utagawa’s first
declaration are not supported by quantitative
experimental results. What is "substantial" to one
may not be substantial to another. And Hoshino et
al. have failed to establish the extent of any such
allegedly "substantial" improvement through
objective and specific experimental data.
Hoshino’s reply to Tanaka’s opposition is accompanied by
an additional declaration of Mr. Utagawa (second Utagawa
- 37 -
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007