Interference No. 103,878
and the report of this “marveling” too fragmentary to afford
any evidence weighing for the unobviousness of the invention.
Having considered all the evidence anew, and
carefully weighing the evidence both for and against
obviousness, it is our conclusion that the subject matter of
all of senior party’s patent claims would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in
the outdoor lighting art. The junior party’s motion for
judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, we will enter judgment
against the senior party on the ground of unpatentability,
hereinbelow.
Additionally, we note that the prior art discussed,
supra, and the declarations from the junior party’s declarants
clearly establish the unpatentability of the junior party’s
claimed subject matter. The junior party has made of record
no evidence to the contrary, and has included no argument in
his main brief that his claims are patentable over this prior
art. Accordingly, judgment will also be entered against all
claims of the junior party on the ground of unpatentability
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, hereinbelow.
35
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007