Appeal No. 94-2232
Application 07/888,367
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) over prior publications whose
authorship included a student not named as a coinventor of the
subject matter claimed in the patent application and the
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 contri-
bution 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, 218 USPQ
370 (Bd. App. 1982). In the case then before the Board
“various declarations were submitted by Kroger and Rod to the
effect that Kroger and Rod are inventors and that Knaster
merely carried out assignments and worked under the
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007