Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
According to Provencher, it is an innovation of Hashiguchi and a
solution provided by Hashiguchi that the modules 1 and 2 are not
fastened to each other. Provencher cites to Paragraph 22 of
Hashiguchi, entitled ŭEffects of the Innovation," which states:
can
* , * * Because of this, connector assembly
be carried out with increased efficiency and accuracy,
and also, even if one of the contacts in a module is
damaged in assembly of the connector, there is the
advantage that a module of the damaged type can be
easily substituted. (Emphasis added.)
Provencher argues (Opp. page 11, line 18 to page 12,
line 3):
[Ilf module No. 1 and module No. 2 were secured to one
another and then inserted into the housing as opposed
to simply being interlocked to the housing in a
superposed state, then both module No. 1 and module No.
2 would have to be removed from the housing in order to
fix only one of the two modules. [Footnote omitted.]
Furthermore, if the two modules were firmly secured to
one another, it would be difficult to separate the
damaged module from the undamaged module without
damaging the otherwise damaged module. Exhibit 1015 TT
21-23.
Although everything noted in the immediately preceding
quotation of Provencher's argument is true and also contrary to
the idea in Hashiguchi to provide for easy substitution of any
single damaged module, we reject Provencher's assertion that
Hashiguchi 'teaches away" from fastening two modules together.
Provencher too narrowly focuses the concept of ŭteaching away" on
the point of innovation of a prior art reference or the invention
- 33 -
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007