F 113. The written descriptions of Park 947 and Park 426 appear to be essentially identical to the
written descriptions of Applications 08/327,638 and 08/012,475.
F 114. The Canadian application is said to have been filed 10 February 1992 .3
b. Park's Arguments for Benefit
F 115. Park's Claims I and 10 each include a limitation requiring the cyclical and intennittent use
of reduced pressure "during the step for the application of microwaves" and "during the
microwave treatment," respectively. Paper 6, attachment pp. 1 and 2 (emphasis added).
F 116. None of the proposed benefit applications expressly disclose these limitations.
F 117. Par6 asserts that these limitations are inherent in the disclosures of the Park benefit
applications. Paper 43, pp. 3 and 4; Paper 42, pp. 3 and 4; Paper 41, pp. 3 and 4.
F 118. In particular, Park argues that the limitation "cyclically intermittently applying reduced
pressure in the enclosure during the step for the application of microwaves" (Park Claim 1)
and "cyclically intermittently applying reduced pressure during the microwave treatment"
(Park Claim 10) are inherently disclosed in each of the proposed benefit applications. Paper
43, pp. 3 and 4; Paper 42, pp. 3 and 4; Paper 41, pp. 3 and 4.
F 119. Park's arguments for inherency are essentially the same as made with respect to Pard's
preliminary motion alleging Mengal's claims are unpatentable.
F 120. The findings, above, relating to the Park patents and the alleged inherent disclosure of
intermittent reduced pressure are also applicable to PaWs motions for benefit. See T$ F 77
F 95, above.
F 121. In particular, Park argues that one having ordinary skill in the microwave extraction art
would recognize that the Par6 applications to use a conventional microwave oven; that a
conventional microwave oven applies microwaves in pulses; and that the ideal gas equation
3 Par6 has submitted a document said to be a copy of the Canadian application. P. Ex. 2010. This
document has not been authenticated and is not admissible into evidence. 37 CFR 1.671; Fed R. Evid. 901. The
document is not self authenticating. Fed. K Evid. 902. Nor is the document identical in content to Canadian Patent
2,060,913 (document available through the Canadian Intellectual Property Office at
http://patentsl.ic.gc.ca/details9patent-number--206093I&Ianguage=EN). For the reasons stated below, PaWs
preliminary motion for benefit of the Canadian application (Paper 41) is denied for failure of proof It is noted,
however, that the content of P.Ex 2010 appears to be substantially identical to U.S. Application 08/012,475. Thusthe
comments we make herein with respect to Application 08/012,475 would also apply to the P.Ex. 2010.
-25-
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007