Interference 102,760
thereby established that the subject matter of any one of
Dement et al. Claims 1-13 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(f).
The evidence upon which Rapoport relies shows that
Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer did not physically work on the
claimed subject matter together or at the same time. The
evidence also shows that each of Dement, Rosekind and
Schwimmer did not make the same type or amount of contribution
to the claimed subject matter. Moreover, the evidence shows
that at least one of Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer made no
contribution whatsoever
to the subject matter of at least one claim. Nevertheless,
35 U.S.C. § 116 expressly provides that this evidence does not
establish that Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer are not properly
named as joint inventors of the subject matter claimed in
Dement et al. Application 07/695,325.
In Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co.,
973 F.2d 911, 916, 23 USPQ2d 1921, 1925 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the
court indicated that 35 U.S.C. § 116 reflects the
Congressional intent to adopt and codify the principles of
Monsanto Co. v. Kamp, 269 F. Supp. 818, 824, 154 USPQ 259, 262
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007