Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
expressly requires the moving party, in this case Preputnick, to
explicitly identify the differences.
During oral argument on April 1ý, 2002, counsel for
Preputnick was asked by the panel, repeatedly, to point out where
in Preputnick's preliminary motion 2 is there an explicit
identification of the differences between Provencher's claim 17
and the prior art references. The exchange between the panel and
counsel for Preputnick lasted approximately ten to fifteen
minutes, with counsel for Preputnick all the while insisting that
there is in Preputnick's papers an explicit identification of the
differences but also all the while unable to point to any such
explicit identification.' To each pointed question from the
panel in this regard, counsel for Preputnick was consistently
evasive by resorting to generalities. Counsel for Preputnick was
advised that what we were asking about is not something from
which Preputnick's intendeddifferences might be interpreted, but
an ýexplicitl' statement identifying the differences.5 Still,
counsel's evasiveness persisted, despite his inability to point
to anything explicit in the preliminary motion.'
4 See transcript of oral argument from page 11, line 17
through page 23, line 12.
5 See transcript of oral argument at page 17, lines 8-15.
6 See transcript of oral argument at page 17, lines 16-21,
from page 18, line 9 through page 19, line 7, and from page 20,
28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007