Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
Preputnick's preliminary motion 2 with respect to Provencher's
claim 17 on all other grounds of obviousness.
As for Provencher's claim 18 and claim 19, Provencher's
response to Preputnick's preliminary motion 2 insofar as any
ground of unpatentability is based on Hashiguchi as a primary
reference is only that Hashiguchi 'teaches away" from including
complementary fastening portions on the half-modules. See
Provencher's Opposition at page 16. We have, however, already
rejected Provencher's 'teach away" argument. Consequently, in
patent parlance, Provencher's claims 18 and 19 stand or fall with
Provencher's claim 17. Accordingly, because Provencher's claim
17 is deemed obvious over Hashiguchi and Kachlic, Provencher's
claims 18 and 19 are also unpatentable over Hashiguchi and
Kachlic. In that connection, note that Provencher has not
disputed Preputnick's assertion (Motion at 22), with regard to
Provencher's claim 18, that ý[t]he use of ground shields along
one side of a terminal module to define a shielded terminal
module was notoriously well known in the art by 1994."
Preputnick's assertion, insofar as it represents that the idea
was well known by March 1995, is supported by the declaration of
Mr. Richard F. Granitz who stated in 1 22 of his declaration:
37
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007