alternatively that the key chains he says he sold in 1991 would
have rendered obvious the key chain of the Bergfalk claim.
Winter attached a list of 10 companies said to manufacture
snowboard key chains to its list of issues to be considered at
final hearing (Paper 32). Winter provides no objective evidence
that the companies manufacture snowboard key chains or that the
key chains anticipate or would have rendered obvious the Bergfalk
key chain.
Other Winter arguments:
Winter argues, in his preliminary statement but not in his
brief for final hearing (i.e., the principal brief), that he and
Mr. Hiebel produced a model of a snowboard key chain on or about
1 November 1996 and that thereafter technical drawings were made
from the model. A party's brief for final hearing must contain
an argument containing the contentions of the party with respect
to the issues it is raising for consideration at final hearing
and the reasons therefor. 37 CFR § 1.656(b)(6). In the brief
for final hearing, Winter does not argue that Winter invented the
snowboard key chain of the count prior to Bergfalk, therefore we
need not consider the arguments made in the Winter preliminary
statement. Nonetheless, even if we were to consider the
arguments in the preliminary statement and the evidence presented
in the Winter case-in-chief, Winter has not shown that he
reduced to practice a key chain within the scope of the count
prior to Bergfalk.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007