Appeal No. 2001-1055
Application No. 08/651,927
The examiner (Answer, page 4) asserts that "a general
allegation by the inventor that the invention was completed prior
to the date of the reference is insufficient to establish an
actual reduction to practice." The examiner also contends that
"there is no corroborating evidence that the lab produced the
device prior to the effective date of the Kulcke reference." In
addition, the examiner argues (Answer, page 5) that the
Supplemental Declaration is deficient because the date has been
blacked out.
MPEP § 715.07 (8th ed., Rev. 1, Feb. 2003) states that
"[w]hen alleging that conception or reduction to practice
occurred prior to the effective date of the reference, . . . if
the applicant or patent owner does not desire to disclose his or
her actual dates, he or she may merely allege that the acts
referred to occurred prior to a specified date." Since
Mr. Woodruff did allege that the acts referred to occurred prior
to January 18, 1996 in the body of the Declaration and the
Supplemental Declaration, the date has been established.
Furthermore, the second to last paragraph of MPEP § 715.07 states
that no corroboration evidence is necessary for a declaration
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 unless involved in an interference.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007