Appeal No. 97-0939
Application 08/127,319
constructive reduction to practice on July 14, 1992. The activities referred to in exhibits A-D, while
pertinent to conception of the invention, do not show diligence in constructively reducing the presently
claimed invention to practice because they are not directly related to the filing of a patent application
directed to the presently claimed subject matter.
Turning to the remaining exhibits, exhibit E is a photocopy of the same sheet of appellant’s
notes and drawings as exhibit D, except that a portion of the sheet is obscured by what declarant Wilk
characterizes as a “self-adhered note sheet” . The writing within the bounds of the “note sheet”7
includes the initials “N.S.,” the date “6/17/92,” and several additional lines of text. Declarant Wilk
states:
I wrote the note on a self-adhering note sheet and attached the note to the drawing of
Exhibit D. The note has the initial “N.S.” of my patent attorney Neil Sudol, indicating
that I made the note during a meeting with my attorney on June 17, 1992. The note
says that the invention had been “discussed previously” - with my attorney - and carries
the words “same balloon as intussussception device” and “file separately” and “method
claims only.” [Declaration, paragraph 8.]
Exhibit F comprises photocopies of certain pages of an invoice from attorney Sudol dated July
1, 1992. The exhibit supports declarant Wilk’s statements regarding the note sheet of exhibit E in the
sense that it refers to a meeting between declarant Wilk and attorney Sudol on June 17, 1992 “re new
7The “self-adhered note” in question actually appears to be a hand drawn sketch intended to
simulate a self-adhered note.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007