Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
be expressly and specifically identified for each element or step
in a claim said to be unpatentable for anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Our review of Ap pendix I reveals that with references to
four prior art patents in all, only one prior art patent has been
cited for each and every feature or element of Holland's claim
21, U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293 (Exhibit 2006). With respect to
Holland's claim 22, in Appendix I party Spears cites nothing for
the preamble and also cites nothing for element (a)(i) which
states: an electron beam deflection system to produce a film
scanning beam."
In light of the foregoing, it is an understatement to say
that Spears' preliminary motion 3 is sloppy. It is so sloppy
that one cannot be reasonably certain as to what are each of the
underlying basis for the assertion of unpatentability. Only one
fact salvages Spears' preliminary motion from outright dismissal
in its entirety, that Appendix I includes a citation to U.S.
Patent No. 4,633,293 for each element of Holland's claim 21.
Accordingly, Spears' preliminary motion 3, insofar as it
asserts unpatentability of Holland's claims for anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, except with regard to anticipation of
Holland's claims 21 and 22 by U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293 (Exhibit
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007