Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
characterization of the fastening portions as being
'complementary" makes little sense. Note that the word
ýcomplementary" is located immediately next to the word
ýengaging" in the feature at issue, which also leads us to
conclude that the complementary portions engage each other.
Preputnick argues (Motion at 13):
Hashiguchi teaches that the first and second half
modules are inserted in a mutually superposed state
into a housing. Thus, the two half-modules are
combined to form a module and are inserted, as a
module, into the housing. (Fact 4(e)). Once the
combined half-modules are inserted into the housing,
the forked pieces on each half-module engage a
protrusion on the housing to secure the module within
the housing 4. (Fact 4(f); Preputnick Ex. 2020, Decla.
Granitz, para. 53, 54,). Thus, the two piece, modular
connector taught by Hashiguchi inherently meets the
securing limitation of claim 17 under the ýprinciples
of inherency." Verdegaal, suipra, 814 F.2d at 631, 2
USPQ2d at 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The argument is without merit. The fact that modules 1 and 2 in
Hashiguchi are inserted in a mutually superposed state does not
mean that there is some fastening portion on module 1 and some
fastening portion on module 2 which engage each other.
Hashiguchi does not describe anything that fastens the two
modules together during the process of inserting them into the
housing. The two parts may simply be pressed together.
On page 14 of its motion, Preputnick relies on Mr. Granitz'
opinion that the complementary fastening portions feature is
- 21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007