Interference 102,760
of sleep apnea prior to February 12, 1990. . . .” (SRR, WIA,
RI 4, pp. 262).
5. Patentability of Dement et al. Claims 1-13 Under § 102(f)
Claims 1-13 of Dement et al. Application 07/695,325, all
the claims in the application, correspond to interference
Count 1. Rapoport moves for judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)
(Paper No. 52) on the ground that subject matter of Claims 1-
13 of Application 07/695,325, for which Dement, Rosekind and
Schwimmer (Dement et al.) are named as joint inventors, is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). As the moving party,
Rapoport has the burden to establish that Claims 1-13 of
Dement et al. Application 07/695,325 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(f). 37 CFR § 1.637(a). To satisfy this burden,
Rapoport must show that Dement et al. did not jointly invent
the subject matter sought to be patented, i.e., Rapoport must
show that Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer are not properly
named as joint inventors of subject matter claimed in Dement
et al. Application 07/695,325 as provided under 35 U.S.C. §
116.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 116 provides:
When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly,
they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007