PREPUTNICK et al. V. PROVENCHER et al. - Page 23




           Interference No. 104,693                                                          
           Preputnick v. Provencher                                                          
           We find that Hashiguchi's modules 1 and 2 are each attached to                    
           the housing 4 in a mutually aligned manner but are not directly                   
           fastened to each other.                                                           
                In its reply, Preputnick asserts that one with ordinary                      
           skill in the art would have understood that 'the first and second                 
           half modules could be secured together either to each other                       
           directly or via the housing. (Emphasis added)." But the ground                    
           of unpatentability alleged in this preliminary motion is                          
           anticipation, not obviousness. Preputnick provides no citation                    
           to any portion of Hashiguchi which discloses an alternative                       
           embodiment in which modules 1 and 2 are secured directly to each                  
           other rather than separately to a common housing element.                         
                For the foregoing reasons, Hashiguchi does not anticipate                    
           Provencher's claim 17. Furthermore, according to Preputnick,                      
           Provencher's claims 18 and 19 each includes the securing step                     
           feature of claim 17. Consequently, it has not been shown that                     
           Hashiguchi anticipates Provencher's claims 18 and 19.                             
                Preputnick's preliminary motion 1 is denied.                                 
           C. Prenutnick's Preliminary Motion 2                                              
                By its preliminary motion 2, Preputnick asserts that all of                  
           Provencher's claims corresponding to the count, claims 17-19, are                 
           unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. � 103 for obviousness over prior                     
           art. According to 1 26 in the Standing Order issued together                      

                                             23                                              






Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007