Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 11
Application No. 08/226,564
apertures 25, 28. Therefore, we conclude that the lug 13 supported on the rod 10 is attached to the
mounting end of the sleeve as required by claim 1.
As the appellant's arguments have not persuaded us that the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
being anticipated by Schou is improper, we shall sustain this rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 6, 7,
9 and 13 which depend therefrom.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Murray, the appellant has not contested the examiner's determination that Murray
fully discloses the subject matter of these claims and we find no error in the examiner's findings in this
regard. Rather, the appellant asserts that Murray does not claim the same patentable invention, as
defined in 37 CFR § 1.601(n), as the appellant and that the declarations of the appellant (inventor
Darrell A. Igelmund) and his patent attorney Michael J. Folise submitted with the reply brief are
sufficient to overcome the patent to Murray under 37 CFR § 1.131. The appellant also submitted a
supplemental declaration of Mr. Igelmund (attachment to first request to strike, Paper No. 15) in further
support of the appellant's contention that the appellant's invention was conceived prior to the effective
filing date of the application on which the Murray patent was issued. However, as the examiner (Paper
No. 16, page 3) has refused to enter this supplemental declaration, we shall not consider it in rendering
our decision.
37 CFR § 1.131 provides:
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007