Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
explained by Provencher, between Preputnick's claim 17 and
Hashiguchi. Preputnick's preliminary motion 2 will be considered
in light of this difference between Provencher's claim 17 and
Hashiguchi.
According to Preputnick, it would have been well within the
skill of an ordinary artisan to fasten Hashiguchils modules 1 and
2 together for securing them because ýthis is merely a reversal
of disclosed securing features in Hashiguchi" (Motion at 20).
The rationale is unpersuasive. The mere reverse of an action is
not automatically obvious. A reversal of the teachings of a
reference still requires a justifiable motivation on the part of
one with ordinary skill in the art, and does not itself serve.as
an automatic motivation.
Preputnick next argues that ýby 1994, the use of
complementary fastening pieces to secure modules and half-modules
together was well known in the art and the suggestions in the art
would have been combined with Hashiguchils teachings to the
extent Hashiguchi is deficient in this regard." (Motion at 20).
From the bottom of page 20 to the top of page 21, Preputnick's
preliminary motion 2 discusses how each of the AMPMODU
catalogues, U.S. Patent No. 5,171,161 ('the Kachlic patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 4,846,747 ('the Bet patent"), U.S. Patent No.
4,701,138 (ýthe Key patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 4,820,169 ('the
31 -
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007