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 23Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007