Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
support the dismissal: (1) the motion's procedurally failing to
comply with the requirement of I 26(e) of the Standing Order for
such a motion to explicitly identify the differences between the
claim under attack and the prior art reference being applied; and
(2) as sanction for the persistent and wholly baseless assertions
by Preputnick's counsel during oral argument that Preputnick's
motion contains an explicit statement identifying the differences
between Provencher's claim and the applied prior art reference.
We will, however, consider Preputnick's preliminary motion 2
insofar as it is based on Hashiguchi as a primary reference.
Despite the failure of its preliminary motion 2 to.
explicitly identify and focus on differences between Provencher's
claims and Hashiguchi, Preputnick is saved by the unique posture
in which we find this case, insofar as obviousness over
Hashiguchi is concerned. Preputnick filed preliminary motion 1
alleging that Provencher's claims 17-19 are each anticipated by
Hashiguchi. Provencher responded to Preputnick's preliminary
motion 1 by specifically identifying a difference between
Provencher's claim 17 and Hashiguchi, i.e., that Hashiguchi's
modules 1 and 2 do not engage each other through complementary
fastening portions on the modules as is required by Provencher's
claim 17. In connection with Preputnick's preliminary motion 1,
we specifically found that there is such a difference, as is
- 30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007