Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
is entitled "RELIEF REQUESTED" but is the antithesis to something
precise. Party Holland cannot reasonably be expected to figure
out the precise ground of unpatentability alleged by party Spears
and neither could the board. Specifically, the paragraph states:
Spears and Walker (Junior Party) move for judgment
on the grounds that claims 21 and 22 of Holland and
Schultz (Senior party) designated to correspond to the
count are unpatentable to the Senior Party under 35 USC
102 and/or 35 USC 103 over U.S. Patent No. 4,823,204
issued April 18, 1989, U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293 issued
December 30, 1986, U.S. Patent No. 5,303,044 issued
April 12, 1994, U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 issued
October 4, 1994 and in view of the prior art as set
forth in the Declaration of David Walker re Prior Art.
It is well established that to constitute anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102, all the limitations of a claim being attacked
must be found within the four corners of a single reference.
E.g., Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Glaxo, Inc. v.
Novopharm, Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1995). Spears refers to four prior art patents, not in the
alternative, and further adds the phrase "in view of . . . ." if
it takes a combination of four patents plus the addition of
another item of prior art to arrive at Holland's claimed
invention, the ground of unpatentability cannot be anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007