Interference No. 103,878
reflector and dispense with the refractor on the prior art
NEMA head disclosed in the senior party’s patent.
We also acknowledge the declarations of Messrs.
Wilkerson and Kenyon. Inasmuch as we have compared the
closest prior art to the senior party’s patent claims and
found no prior art reference to be anticipatory, we do not
credit the declara- tions to the extent that they are directed
to the motion’s allegation that the subject matter of the
senior party claims are
anticipated. With respect to Wilkerson’s statements in the
declaration that the Highbay fixture had been pole mounted
outdoors, the statement was retracted as “probably wrong” in
cross-examination. JR65. With respect to Kenyon’s testimony,
Kenyon only knew of one instance where a Highbay-type fixture
was used outdoors. Kenyon stated that this type of fixture
had been suspended from overhead wires or catenaries in a rail
yard. JP82. However, it seems clear, from the Hubbell
catalog page
exhibit, that only the enclosed embodiment is recommended for
wet locations, and the enclosed embodiment has a glass lens
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007