Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
paragraph, for lack of written description in the specification.
is denied.
B. Preiputnick's Preliminary Motion 1
By this preliminary motion, Preputnick seeks to have all of
Provencher's claims corresponding to the count, claims 17-19,
held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Japanese Utility Model Application 6-88065 (Hashiguchi).
Exhibit 2009 is a copy of Hashiguchi. Exhibit 2010 is an
English translation of Hashiguchi, provided by Preputnick.
Hereinafter, our references to Hashiguchi are intended as
references to Exhibit 2010 except as otherwise indicated.
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and
every element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim,
must be found in a single prior art reference. Karsten Mfg.
Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 13-76, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286,
1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Glaxo, Inc. v. Novoipharm, Ltd., 32 F.3d
1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
On the issue of anticipation, only one feature of
Provencher's independent claim 17 is in dispute, i.e., the step
of 'securing said first and second half-modules together by
engaging complementary fastening portions to define said terminal
module." The key to resolving this issue lies in the question -
does the claim feature require that something on the first half
19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007