Appeal No. 2001-1055
Application No. 08/651,927
Since there is no interference, no corroborating evidence is
necessary.
The examiner contends (Answer, page 5) that "there is no
evidence that the device worked for its intended purpose" and
that "it is not clear what the test results show" in the
Supplemental Declaration. The examiner repeats (Answer, page 6)
that "it is not apparent from the test results that the device
worked for its intended purpose, namely for measuring the
acceleration of a proof mass along a fixed axis." However, since
appellants filed a patent application subsequent to the test, it
is implied that the test showed that the device functioned for
its intended purpose. If the test did not show that the device
functioned, why would appellants then file for a patent?
Accordingly, we find that the Declarations would show actual
reduction to practice if signed by both inventors. However,
since they were not signed by both inventors, we will sustain the
rejections.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4,
7, 9, 11 through 15, 17, 22 through 25, 28, 31, and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30,
32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007