Interference No. 103,224
coating prior to application of the principal coating material. Again, this
reflects a fundamental failure on the part of Hashimoto to follow the well-
established Graham criteria for analyzing questions of obviousness.
In essence, Hashimoto merely set forth generalities and conclusions rather
than a reasoned and appropriate analysis of the reference vis-a-vis the claims
at issue in accordance with the Graham guidelines.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that motion 1 was fatally
defective ab initio in failing to present a modicum of proof or reasoned
analysis sufficient to establish a prima facie case of separate patentability.
As in Jacobs, we find that the subject motion was so deficient in failing
to comply with the basic requirements of both § 1.639(a) and § 1.637(a) that
the motion should have been dismissed rather than denied.
Turning to the two Hashimoto Declarations at issue, in view of the initial
failure by Hashimoto to make out even a prima facie case of separate
patentability, the denial of consideration to those later-filed declarations
was entirely in order. Since Hashimoto failed to shift the burden of presenting
evidence to Skutnik, Skutnik was under no obligation to present rebuttal
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007