VAN ENGELEN et al. V. LEE - Page 30




               reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only                                           
               knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was                                       
               made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a                                               
               reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughli , 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA                                           
                1971). Schutten teaches a force actuator system with a feedback loop 80 with various electronic                                   
               components that function to provide feedback to the force actuators. Van Engelen, in its                                           
               preliminary motion, takes the position that the various electronic components shown comprise an                                    
               electric control unit. That position has not been shown by van Engelen to be one based on                                          
               impermissible hindsight reasoning. The fact that Schutten shows electronic components in                                           
               detail, as opposed to a "black box" labeled "electric control unit" does not mean that the various                                 
               electric components shown in Schutten that cooperate to control the actuators are not what one of                                  
               ordinary skill in the art would consider an electric control unit. Thus, we are not persuaded by                                   
               van Engelen's hindsight argument.                                                                                                  

                        For the reasons stated above, Lee preliminary motion 2 is grante                                                          
                        Lee preliminary motions 3, 5 and 6                                                                                        
                        Lee moves for judgment against van Engelen on the basis that several of van Engelen's                                     
               claims (including newly added claims 4, 7 and 9) are unpatentable over certain prior art. In this                                  
               interference, van Engelen has failed to allege a date prior to van Engelen's effective filing date.                                
               Furthermore, van Engelen's preliminary motion 6 attacking the benefit granted Lee is denied.                                       
               Accordingly, judgment will be entered against van Engelcn. There is then no occasion to                                            
               consider Lee's preliminary motions for judgment against van Engelen. For these reasons, Lee                                        
               preliminary motion 3, 5, and 6 are dismissed.                                                                                      
                        Lee preliminary motion 4                                                                                                  

                        Lee moves for benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/127,288, filed July 31, 1998                                      
               (now U.S. Patent 6,049,186); U.S. Patent Application No. 08/627,824, filed April 2,1996 (now                                       

                                                                     -30-                                                                         






Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007