Appeal No. 1997-1508 7
Application No. 08/489,822
by Taylor is that found in Example 3. The ratio therein is 1:20.9. This ratio is clearly
outside the scope of the claimed subject matter of 1:20. The examiner’s findings, as to
Example 2 on page 13, directed to a ratio of fluorocarbon additive to one of the pigments
(Scarlet pigment) present in the example fails to reflect the presence of a second pigment,
i.e., a magenta pigment. See Answer, page 4. The combination of both pigments results
in a ratio of fluorocarbon additive: total pigment of 1:42.9. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain this rejection. We further note that the only rejection before us is under Section
102.1
The Rejection under Section 103
The sole issue presented to us with respect to this rejection pertains to the filing
date of the Bills patent, i.e., November 16, 1992. It is the appellants’ position that they
have submitted evidence in the form of affidavits proving that the invention was made prior
to November 16, 1992. See Brief, pages 8 and 9. We disagree.
As stated in MPEP, 715.04, 8th Edition, August 2001, It is well settled that in an
affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.131
the following parties may make an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR
§ 1.131:
(A) All the inventors of the subject matter claimed.
(B) An affidavit or declaration by less than all named
inventors of an application is accepted where it is shown that less than
1There is no rejection in the record before us of these claims under Section 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007