Interference 102,760
A panel of this board has decided priority, determining
that "Rapoport has lost the priority contest and is not
entitled to his claims corresponding to the count." Paper No.
112, p. 18. One outstanding motion remains, a motion for
judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a), wherein Rapoport moves for
judgment on the ground that claims 1-13 of Dement et al.
("Dement") application 07/695,325, corresponding to Count 1,
are not patentable to Dement. See Paper No. 52. The issue
raised by that motion, and the sole issue currently before
this panel, is whether Rapoport has shown that claims 1-13 of
the Dement application are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(f). I agree with the decision, reached by the majority,
that junior party Rapoport has not sustained its burden of
establishing improper inventorship of the Dement application
and add the following comments thereto.
According to the record in this interference, the
contributions of Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer to the
invention of claims 1-13 in Dement application 07/695,325
include (majority opinion, pp. 10-12):
D. "For all claims in which . . . Dement is
identified as an inventor in response to
Interrogatory No. 1 [(RI 1)], his contribution
to the conception of the invention was his
concept, as disclosed to Wesley Seidel prior to
April 1986, of a method for treatment of sleep
42
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007