Appeal No. 2003-1774
Application No. 09/797,038
has nine inventors, the examiner properly concluded that “[t]he
inventive entity in Haggquist is not the same as the inventive
entity in this application” (page 30 of answer, first paragraph).
Appellants’ attention is directed to MPEP section 2136.04. Also,
as explained by the examiner, appellants have proffered no
evidence which establishes that portions of Haggquist relied on
in the rejection are the work of all of the nine present
inventors, “[n]or have appellants filed a petition to amend the
inventorship of the instant application, limiting the
inventorship to the inventors listed on Haggquist” (page 30 of
Answer, second paragraph).
Concerning the remaining rejections of the examiner, no
further comment is necessary.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, and the reasons
well-stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting
the appealed claims is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007