Appeal No. 94-2794
Application No. 07/702,533
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102 (a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over, the disclosure of Unno.
We reverse.
Appellant does not dispute that the Unno reference
describes or would have suggested the claimed toner
composition within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) or §
103. Appellant, however, argues that the Rule 131 declaration
of record executed by Grushkin, the sole inventor in this
application, is sufficient to remove Unno as a prior art
reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 103. The dispositive
question is, therefore, whether the Rule 131 declaration is
sufficient to establish that the claimed invention was made
prior to the publication date of the Unno reference. We
answer this question in the affirmative.
37 CFR § 1.131 states in relevant part:
(a)(1) When any claim of an application . . . is
reje
cted
unde
r 35
U.S.
C. §
102(
a)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007