Ex Parte Skulnick - Page 11




              Interference No. 105,125                                                                                        
              Chaffee v. Skulnick                                                                                             
              count or uses an equivalent. As was stated by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in                   
              Hitzeman v. Rutter, 243 F.3d 1345, 1354, 58 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2001), "nothing is                     
              better settled in patent law than that in interference cases express limitations in counts may not be           
              ignored," citing McBride v. Tegple, 109 F.2d 789, 799, 44 USPQ 523, 533 (CCPA 1940). All                        
              limitations in interference counts are regarded as material to the invention covered by the counts.             
              Hitzeman, 243 F.3d at 1354, 58 USPQ2d at 1167; Meitner v. Corte, 537 F.2d 524, 530, 190                         
              USPQ 407, 412 (CCPA 1976).                                                                                      
                                            The Original Rule 608(b) Evidence                                                 
                     Junior party Thomas J. Chaffee's originally submitted evidence under 37 CFR § 1.608(b)                   
              fails to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment relative to the senior party                   
              patentee because the submitted photographs do not show the top, bottom, rear, and lateral side                  
              views of the ornamental design of the boat fender being illustrated in the photographs. We find                 
              that the photographs do not illustrate a boat fender embodying all of the ornamental design                     
              features of the count as defined by either the junior party's sole application claim or the senior              
              party's sole patent claim. The design claim of both parties include ornamental features on the                  
              top, bottom, rear, and lateral sides of the boat fender. For instance, both lateral sides must have a           
              circular contour, and one side has a small circular pattern enclosing an elongated finger.' The                 


                     3 The small pattern enclosing an elongated finger is not illustrated in broken lines to                  
              indicate something that is a part of the environment but not a part of the claimed design. See                  
              Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1503.02 IN. There is no basis to assume that it depicts                  
              a purely functional element and not some part of the ornamental design. Even counsel for the                    
              junior party admitted during oral argument that he is not sure that it depicts a functional valve.              
                                                             I I                                                              







Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007