Interference No. 105% 0
holding means or die (Bihler, Fig. 2, reference numerals 49 and 50; Taylor, Fig. 1,
reference numerals 5, 6, and 7; Nakamura, Fig. 2, reference numerals 4 and 7).
Furthermore, it appears to us that each of the additional references describing a gripping
tool have a fixed base portion (Nakamura, Fig. 2, reference numerals 4 and 7; page 1,
lines 86-69; Bihler, Fig. 4, reference numerals 49 and 50).
Consequently, we find that Tarpill has failed to carry its burden to show that
Bihler, Nakamura and Taylor cure the Nilsson deficiency. Accordingly, we shall deny
Tarpill Preliminary Motion 1 as it pertains to obviousness.
IV. Conclusion
As the moving party Tarpill has failed to establish that the proffered references,
either singly or in combination anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of
Bourbeau claim 1, we deny Tarpill Preliminary Motion 1.
V. Judgment
It is ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of Count I is herein
entered against Senior Party ANDREW J. TARPILL.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Tarpill Preliminary Motion 5 is GRANTED with
respect to Tarpill's Preliminary Motion 2, Preliminary Motion 3, and Preliminary Motion
4, but is otherwise DENIED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Tarpill Preliminary Motion I is denied on the
merits.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Senior Party ANDREW J. TARPILL is not
entitled to his application claims 9-11, 14-23, and 25-49 which correspond to Count 1.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007