Ex Parte JOHNSON - Page 19




                 Interference No. 104,314                                                                                                                    
                 Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.                                                                                              

                 unit to be on the outside surface of the vertical leg, "generally L-shaped" means that the pump                                             
                 and motor must extend away from each other rather than facing each other. Based on Sauer's                                                  
                 representation, an L-shaped configuration allows, not requires, one of the pump and motor to be                                             
                 on top of a horizontal surface and the other to be on the outside of the vertical surface. The                                              
                 distinction urged by Sauer, essentially that the pump and motor are separated by a leg on the "L,"                                          
                 actually derives support from other claim features which are also present in the count, i.e., that                                          
                 the second mounting surface is on the second surface of the second leg opposite the first surface                                           
                 of the second leg which extends at right angles away from the first surface of the first leg on                                             
                 which is located the first mounting surface. In that regard, we have already explained above how                                            
                 the upper right hand figure in Exhibit 2224, as annotated by Sauer, does not satisfy these                                                  
                 requirements.                                                                                                                               
                          For the foregoing reasons, Sauer has failed to establish complete conception of the                                                
                 invention of the count prior to November 23, 1987, and thus Sauer has also failed to demonstrate                                            
                 that Kanzaki derived the invention of the count from Sauer through a communication that                                                     
                 occurred in a meeting held on November 23-25, 1987.                                                                                         
                                                                       Judgmen                                                                               
                          It is                                                                                                                              
                          ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of the count is herein entered against                                              
                 junior party JOSEPH E. LOUIS and ALAN W. JOHNSON;                                                                                           
                          FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JOSEPH E. LOUIS and ALAN W. JOHNSON                                                              

                                                                        - 19 -                                                                               







Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007