Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
If you secure together modules having different
configurations such as disclosed in Hashiguchi, then
the total number of each of the half modules is cut in
half contrar to the whole idea behind a modular
product. In addition, two sets of expensive molding
and stamping tools (plus the tooling required to
assemble and secure the modules together) would be
required. Exhibit 1015 1 26. (Emphasis in original).
At the outset, we note that Provencher's claim 17 does not
specify whether the first and second half-modules must be the
same or different in configuration, and also does not require any
particular degree of modularity. Moreover, securing two half
modules of different configuration together after they have been
produced does not reduce the number of each type of half-modules
made. Even assuming that the number of each type of half-modules
would be reduced, Provencher does not account for the benefits
that would be achieved by securing two half-modules together.
The issue involves a balancing costs and benefits depending an
the applicable goals. Provencher's argument is further
undermined by the Kachlic patent which discloses modules which
are different in structure and which are fastened together
through complementary means on the modules.
For the foregoing reasons, with regard to Provencher's claim
17, we grant Preputnick's preliminary motion 2 but only on the
ground of obviousness over Hashiguchi in combination with the
Kachlic patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,171,161), and dismiss
- 36 -
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007