Appeal No. 2000-0379
Application No. 08/815,352
patentee of the individual elements or sub-combinations
thereof if the latter are not separately claimed apart from
the combination. It is clear that the inventor of a
combination may not have invented any element of that
combination, much less each of the elements."). See also
Aktiebolaget Karlstads Mekaniska Werkstad v. United States
Int'l Trade Comm'n, 705 F.2d 1565, 1574, 217 USPQ 865, 871
(Fed. Cir. 1983) ("there is no presumption, or any reason to
assume, that everything disclosed in a patent specification
has been invented by the patentee. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d
1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 297 (CCPA 1980). See In re DeBaun,
687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982)."). Moreover, the
"minimum correlation" encoding technique is first described in
the patent in the "Background of the Invention," at column 3,
lines 49-64.
Although Appellant's original declaration filed with the
application identifies Appellant as the inventor of the
subject matter claimed therein and the appealed claims are the
originally filed claims, that declaration fails to demonstrate
derivation of that subject matter from Appellant by the
patentees. See Carreira, 532 F.2d at 1359, 189 USPQ at 463
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007