Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
satisfied by a showing based on just one within the group, e.g.,
Holland's claim 21 (same as Spears' claim 3) from the group
consisting of Holland's claims 21 and 22.
Spears has not articulated what is not present in Holland's
claim 22 but required by its claims 8-10. Holland's claim 21 is
the same as Spears' claim 3 with respect to which a comparison
has been made, but Holland's claim 22 is not. A comparison of
Spears' claims 8-10 with the count does not equate with a
comparison with Holland's claim 22. It is not the role of this
board to help party Spears articulate a difference between
Spears' claims 8-10 and Holland's claim 22. That is the role of
Spears' counsel as an advocate, not the role of the board as an
unbiased and impartial decision maker. Taking sides to aid one
party to the detriment of the other is not what we do.
Even assuming that the same differences exist with respect
to Holland's claim 22 as those with respect to Holland's claim
21, as is discussed above, the attorney's argument of
unobviousness is not supported by the evidence cited for that
proposition. we are not persuaded that the inventors are not
aware of prior art which discloses claim features (a) and/or (b)
of Spears' claim 8 and which, if combined with Holland's claim
22, would have rendered the subject matter'of Spears' claims 8-10
obvious.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007