Appeal No. 1996-1552
Application 08/241,976
any event, we note that as Associate Counsel for Patents, it was not necessary that Mr. McDonnell
drop all his other cases and concentrate on the particular invention of the instant application to the
exclusion of all others. We conclude that the many activities relating to the instant application5
performed by Mr. McDonnell during the critical period constitute due diligence, and accordingly, we
will reverse the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 25 to 29 on appeal.
In view of the foregoing finding of diligence as demonstrated by the McDonnell declaration,
appellant has effectively predated the effective dates of Ting and Calcatera and removed them as prior
art, and the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 25 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
5 See Rines v. Morgan, 250 F.2d 365, 369, 116 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1957); Emery v. Ronden, 188 USPQ 264,
269 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1974).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007