Appeal No. 2003-0210
Application 03/237,574
appellants had invented a coated metallic uranium article made by
dipping metallic uranium a bath comprising from 75% copper and
25% tin to 20% copper and 80% tin.
This declaration is effective for overcoming Robinson as to
claims 1, 7 and 15, Boller as to claims 1 and 7, and Eubank as to
claims 1, 7 and 8 because it at least would have rendered obvious
so much of the appellants’ claimed invention as each of these
references shows. See In re Clarke, 356 F.2d 987, 992, 148 USPQ
665, 670 (CCPA 1966).2
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation of the appellants’ claimed
invention by Robinson, Boller or Eubank.
2 The examiner argues, in reliance upon Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2138.06, that the Rule 131
declaration is insufficient to overcome the references because
there is no showing of diligence during the 15 months between the
dates in the invention disclosure documents and the filing date
of the parent application (answer, pages 5-6). The section of
the MPEP relied upon by the examiner pertains to the
consideration of diligence set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) with
respect to determinations of priority in interferences and,
therefore, is not relevant to the present case.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007