Interference 102,760
Before the motion for judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)
can be granted, Rapoport must show that an invention claimed
in Dement et al. Application 07/695,325 is unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(f). Rapoport has not met his burden.
Rapoport has not shown that Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer are
not properly joined as inventors of a patentable invention
claimed in Application 07/695,325. In short, Rapoport has not
shown that Application 07/695,325 names an inventive entity
which is not proper under 35 U.S.C. § 116. Accordingly, we
deny Rapoport’s Motion For Judgment Under 37 CFR
§1.633(a)(Paper No. 52).
Concomitantly, Rapoport has not shown that the
preliminary statement of Dement et al., referring to initial
disclosure and conception of the invention defined by the
interference count in 1986 “by the inventors” (Preliminary
Statement Of Dement et al., Paper No. 10, para. 4 and 3), is
incorrect. The Board held, consistent with the joint
inventorship provisions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 116 (1984), that the conception by Dement of an embodiment
of the interference count inures to the benefit of the
inventive entity of the Dement et al. application (Decision
mailed
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007