Appeal No. 2003-0190
Application No. 08/515,964
passages at columns 3, 4, and 5 as well as claims 6, 8, and 9 of
the patent to Takano in concluding that Appellants Ono and
Komatsu did not invent the subject matter now sought to be
patented. It is noteworthy that the record reveals that both the
patentee and the Appellants are assignors to Yamaha Hatsudoki
Kabushiki Kaisha. The issued patent to Takano must include, of
course, an oath, consonant with 35 U.S.C. § 115, as to the belief
that they are the original and first inventors of the subject
matter for which a patent is solicited, i.e., their claimed
invention. Similarly, the oath of Appellants Ono and Komatsu
in the instant application comports with 35 U.S.C. § 115 as to
their claimed subject matter directed to a timing arrangement for
an internal combustion engine, which as pointed out by Appellants
(Brief, page 4) differs from the accessory drive mounting
structure claimed by Takano. In the current circumstance, strong
evidence is required to reach the contrary conclusion that Ono
and Komatsu are not the inventors of their claimed invention.
See Ex parte Kusko, 215 USPQ 972, 974 (Bd. App. 1981).
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
-4–4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007