Appeal No. 2001-1918
Application No. 09/096,999
Appellant refers (Brief at 8) to a “Disclosure Document” filed June 26, 1995, but
the Brief is unclear with respect to what the Disclosure Document is submitted to show.4
In the instant case, the Disclosure Document cannot be relied upon as showing
conception of the invention, since the Disclosure Document date is subsequent to the
critical date. If one were to assume the Disclosure Document may represent a
constructive reduction to practice of the invention -- thus assuming an allegation of
conception before the critical date and reduction to practice after the critical date -- the
declaration and exhibits fail to meet the requirements for showing “due diligence” at
least during the more-than-one-year period from prior to May 13, 1994 until the
Disclosure Document date of June 26, 1995. Appellant has not “account[ed] for the
entire critical period by showing either activity aimed at reduction to practice or legally
adequate excuses for inactivity.” 3 D. Chisum, Patents, §10.07 at 10-120 (1986).
Having determined that Blocher has not been antedated as a reference, we turn
to review the substance of the section 103 rejection applied against the claims.
Appellant contests the rejection, in part, on the theory that Blocher “electrically grounds”
the ballast while applicant’s invention “magnetically shields” the ballast.
While it is true that Blocher describes housing 10 (Fig. 1) as being electrically
grounded (via grounding wire 50; Fig. 3), the reference is clear that housing 10 also
4 The “Disclosure Documents” program is a service provided by the USPTO for preserving
evidence of the date of conception of an invention. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1706, p.
1700-7 (8th Ed. Aug. 2001).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007