Interference No. 103,224
separately apply the components of the coating material recited in the count to the
surface of a glass article (rather than all at once)." Rather than doing this, Hashimoto
merely made general reference to "the prior art of record in the files of the involved
Skutnik et al. application and Hashimoto et al. patent," and set forth general conclusions
to the effect that this prior art does not suggest that the two-step process is
equivalent, or obvious from, a one-step process. Hashimoto failed to provide copies of any
of the prior art references of record with the motion, and failed to analyze each
particular reference as to its relevance by, for example, explaining where in the
reference - by page and line - relevant subject matter is disclosed. Hashimoto also failed
to address the obviousness issue in terms of the three factual inquiries enunciated in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
With regard to all of the aforementioned deficiencies of motion 1, its disposition
is governed by well-established criteria set forth in Jacobs v. Moriaritv, 6 USPQ2d 1799,
1801, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988). While Jacobs related to a preliminary motion for
judgment under § 1.633(a), it is nevertheless deemed applicable where, as here, a moving
party in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007