Appeal No. 95-0423
Application 07/696,859
disclosure statement.” Evidence in the form of reproductions
of notebook entries accompany Prywes I in support of the
statements made therein.
Prywes II, although not submitted for the purpose of
antedating the Ritch patent, is relevant here to the extent it
alleges in paragraphs 5 through 8 that appellant engaged in
certain activities in the interval of time between the alleged
date of conception and the filing of the application. No
evidence accompanies Prywes II in support of the statements
made therein.
The examiner determined that the Prywes I declaration was
sufficient to establish conception of the claimed invention
prior to the filing date of the Ritch patent (answer, page 4),
but that the declaration is not effective to overcome the
reference because “there is no factual evidence demonstrating
due diligence between the date of conception and the reduction
to practice that occurred by the filing of this application”
(answer, page 7). The examiner does not mention Prywes II in5
5The examiner’s treatment of appellant’s showing of facts
is incorrect to the extent it infers that appellant must show
diligence all the way from the date of conception to the
filing of the present application. As is made clear by 37 CFR
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007