Appeal No. 2000-0379
Application No. 08/815,352
USPQ at 277), the court ascribes no importance to this fact. 2
Nor has the court required a patentee to submit a § 1.132
affidavit or declaration disclaiming the subject matter at
issue. See DeBaun, 687 F.2d at 461 n.4, 214 USPQ at 934 n.4
(holding that a disclaiming affidavit by coinventor Noll of
reference patent to DeBaun and Noll is not required). Cf.
Katz, 687 F.2d at 455, 215 USPQ at 18 ("The board and the
examiner held that 'disclaiming affidavits or declarations by
the other authors are required to support appellant's position
that he is, in fact, the sole inventor of the subject matter
described in the article and claimed herein.' This was clear
error. Submission of such affidavits or declarations would
have ended the inquiry, but we do not agree that they are
required by the statute or Rule 132. What is required is a
2While DeBaun notes that Air Monitor Corporation is
the assignee of the DeBaun application and was the employer of
Noll, who is named as a coinventor along with DeBaun in the
reference patent (687 F.2d 461 & n.4; 214 USPQ at 934 & n.4),
the court does not indicate that the patent is assigned to Air
Monitor Corp. Carreira does not indicate whether the
application or reference patent, which have overlapping
inventive entities, are commonly assigned.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007