Appeal No. 1999-1484
Application No. 07/963,109
As MPEP Section 706.02(g) points out, an examiner should
presume proper inventorship unless there is proof that another or
others made the invention and that an inventor(s) derived the
invention from the true inventor(s). In the present case, and
contrary to the view of the examiner (answer, pages 3 and 5), it
is quite apparent to this panel of the Board that the showing in
Fig. 1 of the Freidmann and Zapf patent, in and of itself, fails
to provide the requisite proof that the now claimed invention,
broad or otherwise, was in fact made by patentees Freidmann and
Zapf, and that appellants’ Jackel and Reik derived the invention
from the latter inventors. Lacking the noted proof, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) is not sound and cannot be
sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007