Appeal No. 96-2475
Application 08/319,473
constitutes evidence which compels the removal of the two
Japanese publications as references against these two claims on
the basis that the pertinent information set forth therein was
the applicants' own work. In this regard, it should be
recognized that the those named as the inventors of the invention
for which the patent protection is sought in an application may
not necessarily be those who are responsible for all of the
information contained in the disclosure.
The subject matter presented in claims 1 and 3 through 20
was present in each of the two parent applications, and
therefore has an effective filing date of November 1, 1991. The
Japanese publications are not effective references as to these
claims, for the reasons discussed immediately above, and we
therefore will not sustain the rejections of such.
A different conclusion arises, however, with regard to
claims 21 and 22. The subject matter added by dependent claims
21 and 22 was not present in the earliest application, as was the
case with all of the other claims, but was added in the
continuation-in-part application filed on December 11, 1992. In
such a situation, that some subject matter in a claim may have
the support of an earlier application than other of the subject
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007