PREPUTNICK et al. V. PROVENCHER et al. - Page 38





          Interference No. 104,693                                                           
          Preputnick v. Provencher                                                           
                     22. The placement of a conduction ground shield                         
               along one side of a terminal module to define a                               
               shielded terminal module was well known to one of                             
               ordinary skill in the art long before March 1995 and is                       
               explained repeatedly in the patent literature, as shown                       
               in the Soes 1183 patent and the Gilissen '341 patent.                         
               Based on the foregoing, we find that the placement of a                       
          conduction ground shield along one side of a terminal module to                    
          define a shielded terminal module was well known to one of                         
          ordinary skill in the art by March 1995. See, for example, U.S.                    
          Patent No. 5,496,183 (ęSoes") and U.S. Patent No. 5,104,341                        
          ('Gilissen"), as is discussed in 1 22 of the Granitz declaration.                  
               We note further that in its Request for Declaration of                        
          Interference (Exhibit 2019, page 3), regarding a connector having                  
          a conduction ground shield along one side of the terminal module,                  
          Preputnick stated that '[s]uch ground shields are well known and                   
          admitted prior art and it would have been obvious to use such a                    
          shield with the terminal module of Count I."                                       
               For the foregoing reasons, with regard to Provencher's                        
          claims 18 and 19, we gran 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                   
          Preputnick's preliminary motion 2 with respect to Provencher's                     
        .claims 18 and 19 on all other grounds of obviousness.                               




                                            38                                               








Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007