Interference No. 104,313
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
each and every feature or limitation in the count, citing Cabilly v. Boss, 55 USPQ2d 1238, 1255
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1998).
On page 48 of its brief, Sauer reproduces "Sauer's half of the count." Evidently, Sauer
omitted the last feature or limitation in Sauer's claim 1, which is also present in Kanzaki's claim
9, i.e., that the L-shaped member has a means for accommodating the mounting thereof within
the interior cavity of the housing. Not surprisingly, in the discussion portion of its brief, and as
is correctly pointed out by Kanzaki, Sauer neither alleges nor demonstrates how or why the
drawing of Exhibit 2045 demonstrates such a mounting means.
Kanzaki also correctly points out (1) that Sauer's brief does not allege or show how the
drawing of Exhibit 2045 illustrates an L-shaped member whose first and second legs are
"integrally joined" as is required by the count in this interference; and (2) that Sauer's brief does
not allege or show how the drawing of Exhibit 2045 illustrates an arrangement in which the
second leg of the L-shaped member having a first surface extending upwardly from the upper
surface of the first leg and a second surface opposite and parallel to the first surface, with the
motor mounting surface being on the second surface of the second leg, as is required by the
count.
Thus, at least three elements of the count are not addressed in Sauer's brief These
deficiencies are fatal, given that Sauer is the junior party with the burden of proof. Ontopof
these noted deficiencies based on Sauer's omissions, Kanzaki also asserts that the arrangement
shown in the drawing of Exhibit 2045 does not reflect a generally L-shaped member for a center
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007