Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
When the panel instructed counsel for Preputnick to read for
the court reporter whatever it is that he regards as an explicit
statement identifying differences between Provencher's claim 17
and the prior art, counsel read, instead, what the Hashiguchi
reference discloses rather than what it does not disclose .7 It
was apparent that counsel for Preputnick had made up his mind
that whatever it is that the Standing order requires to be
present in Preputnick's motion he will say is present, no matter
how clearly contrary are the underlying facts. Such an attitude
is deplorable. Having observed counsel's demeanor, we find that
counsel's steadfast insistence on a fact so patently untrue and
for which he can provide no support was not based on ignorance or
inadvertence, but on specific intent to deny an omission or
mistake regardless of the facts. Such conduct is sanctionable.
Denials without support do not persuade. All Preputnick's
counsel managed to do is to add to the damage by losing his own
credibility with this panel.
We dismiss Preputnik's preliminary motion 2, insofar as it
is based on any of the AMPMODU catalogues as a primary reference,
on two separate and independent grounds either of which would
line 17 through page 21, line 9.
7 See transcript of oral argument at page 17, lines 16-21,
ahd from page 18, line 9 through page 19, line
29 -
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007