Interference No. 103,036
present a new argument at final hearing for granting a motion if
the new argument is not included in the original motion, unless
the party shows good cause as to why the argument was not earlier
presented. Bayles v. Elbe, 16 USPQ2d 1389, 1391 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1990); Payet v. Swidler, 207 USPQ 168, 170 (Bd. Pat. Int.
1980); and Fredkin v. Irasek, 397 F.2d 342, 346, 158 USPQ 280,
284 (CCPA 1968). Accordingly, the brief is dismissed as to this
matter.
Even if this matter were timely raised in the
preliminary motion, the motion would have been denied.
Anticipation requires that all the elements of the claimed
invention be described in a single reference. In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We agree
with the party Burroughs et al. that the Kiernan and Parker
patents and the prior art BatCheck® tester fail as an
anticipation of the party Burroughs et al.'s claims, because they
do not disclose either a battery strength indicator attached to
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007