Appeal No. 97-1999
Application 07/390,745
relates to the disclosed use of and uses for 1-
aminocyclopropane carboxylic acid taught in this application,
was made by Marvizon, Lewin, Skolnick, Monn and Rice rather
than Marvizon, Lewin, and Skolnick. Skolnick’s declaration
strongly suggests that all subject matter disclosed in this
application which relates to the use of the esters of 1-
aminocyclopropanecarboxylic acid was made by Marvizon, Lewin,
Skolnick, Monn, and Rice. However, Skolnick does not explain
why his declaration appears to be inconsistent with the
original declaration which supports the present application.
That declaration indicates that Marvizon, Lewin, Skolnick,
Monn, and Rice are the inventors of all the subject matter
defined by the claims on appeal as a whole. We find that
Skolnick’s Rule 132 declaration is confusing at best and does
not satisfactorily explain what subject matter disclosed in
Marvizon was invented by Marvizon, Lewin, Skolnick, Monn, and
Rice, the named inventive entity of this case, and cannot
therefore be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
to the subject matter of the claims here on appeal. On the
face of Marvizon, all the subject matter the reference
discloses appears to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Skolnick’s Rule 132 declaration does not satisfactorily
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007