Interference No. 103,224
an interference relies upon prior art cited during ex parte prosecution in
addressing an issue of obviousness. Turning first to the issue of compliance
with § 1.639(a), proof relied upon by Hashimoto, in this case copies of
patents, should have been provided with the motion. As in Jacobs, Hashimoto
failed to provide any such copies, and failed to establish in the motion paper
why the proofs come under the exception of being "part of" the file of an
involved application or patent and where in the files the evidence can be
found.
That which is "part of" the file is listed in the "Contents" of the file
(on the outside flap). Copies of references cited only by the examiner are not
so listed and are not "part of the file" . . . . Once the application matures
into a patent the copies are removed . . . . Jacobs, at 1801.
The subject motion is additionally deficient in failing to comply with §
1.637(a) since the prior art of record is given but a "broad-brush" treatment
with no specific references evaluated or explained by Hashimoto, or relevant
portions of each cited and discussed. In this regard, for the sake of
completeness we have perused the involved Skutnik application and have found
copies of five prior art references of record which appear to relate to the
pretreatment of glass objects with silane coupling agents prior to applying a
coating - to wit, (1) Andrews et al (4749614:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007