Appeal No. 2001-1055
Application No. 08/651,927
42, filed October 6, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 45, filed
February 14, 2001) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the anticipation rejection of clams 1 through 4, 7,
9, 11 through 15, 17, 22 through 25, 28, 31, and 34 and the
obviousness rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30,
32, and 35.
The sole issue in this case is whether the Declarations of
Mr. Woodruff dated April 1, 1999 and November 19, 1999 show that
the invention was actually reduced to practice prior to
January 18, 1996, the effective date of the Kulcke reference,
thereby removing Kulcke as prior art. We find that the
Declarations are insufficient because they fail to meet the
requirement that all of the inventors must sign the Declaration.
See MPEP § 715.04. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejections. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we
will address the concerns raised by the examiner as to the
sufficiency of the Declarations.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007