Appeal No. 94-2156
Application 07/888,366
claims in this application stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(f) over subsequent publications whose authorship includes
a student, Lee, not named as a coinventor of the subject
matter claimed in this patent application, the evidence in the
two cases is virtually identical. This case similarly
contains a Declaration Under
37 CFR 1.132 (attachment to appellants’ Supplemental Brief
Under 37 CFR 1.193(b)) by a coinventor, Natasha V. Raikhel,
which states in paragraph (1) thereof that “Dr. Lee’s
contribution was as a student at Michigan State University and
he performed routine experimentation under her supervision.”
That the holding in Katz applies to rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f) is evident from Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ
370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982). In the case before the Board
“various declarations were submitted by Kroger and Rod to the
effect that Kroger and Rod are the inventors and that Knaster
merely carried out assignments and worked under the
supervision and direction of Kroger.” Id. at 371. The Board
stated at 371-72:
If this were all the evidence in the case, then
we would be constrained to agree that Kroger et al are
the inventors and that Knaster is not a coinventor.
The difference in Kroger was that the record included
- 11 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007