Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
relative to Provencher's claims 17-19 or relative to what the
three AMPMODU catalogues do not disclose relative to Provencher's
claims 17-19. Preputnick's failure to explicitly identify
differences between each Provencher claim under attack and
Hashiguchi and between each Provencher claim under attack and any
AMPMODU catalogue renders its preliminary motion 2 a bear to read
and understand insofar as how the conclusion of obviousness is
reached. Counsel for Provencher, at oral argument, expressed a
similar sentiment.
Counting the AMPMODU catalogues as three different
references, there are nine different references discussed in
Preputnick's preliminary motion 2. With no differences
explicitly identified, which Preputnick is required to do under
T 26 of the Standing order, the preliminary motion presents an
exhibition of hand-waving, which somehow leads to its obviousness
conclusion.
Neither Provencher nor this panel should have to guess at
what Preputnick regards as the difference between each Provencher
claim and Hashiguchi or the difference between each Provencher
claim and an AMPMODU catalogue. Neither Provencher nor this
panel should have to interpret what difference Preputnick must
have meant in its preliminary motion, because interpretations are
prone to disagreement and uncertainties and the Standing Order
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007