Interference No. 105,125
Chaffee v. Skuhrick
Also, that the sides of the claimed design corresponding to the sides not illustrated in the
photographs include ornamental features is patently evident and not reasonably disputable. Even
counsel for Chaffee has not argued that there are no ornamental designs on the top, bottom, back,
and lateral sides of the claimed boat fender design. Chaffee's apparent belief that not all of the
design features of the claimed design need to be specifically accounted for in a Rule 608(b)
showing is unreasonable as well as inexcusable.
We further reject Chaffee's argument presented on pages 6-7 of its response to the show
cause order to the effect that the interference should be allowed to proceed because additional
evidence, which would likely be conclusive, is in the possession of Skulnick and can only be
obtained through testimony. At the outset, that amounts to a complete disregard of the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.608(b). In effect, Chaffee is saying that while he does not have
sufficient evidence to make out at least a prima facie case that he is entitled to priority relative to
Skuhrick, the interference should be allowed to proceed because he believes that eventually
during the production of testimony during the interference evidence in his favor will be revealed.
We are without authority to relieve Chaffee from the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.608(b), and
even if we do have that authority, we can see no reason to apply 37 CFR § 1.608(b) to other
junior party applicants who attempt to provoke an interference with a patentee but not to Chaffee.
Moreover, while Skulnick may possess the actual prototype sent by Chaffee, if any, that
does not explain why Chaffee could not include in its original showing evidence of the
ornamental designs on the top, bottom, back, and lateral sides of the boat fender it had made.
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007