Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
also clearly established the fact that he invented the relevant subject matter disclosed in
the patent.”). Furthermore, an uncontradicted “unequivocal statement” from the
applicant regarding the subject matter disclosed in an article, patent, or published
application will be accepted as establishing inventorship. In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459,
463, 214 USPQ 933, 936_(CCPA 1982).
The First Ho Declaration was filed with the “Response to First Official Action.”18
That declaration credits Ho and Tuan with “develop[ing] products known as RailMill, and
integrat[ing] the RailMill product with an interactive graphical user interface known as
ChipViewer.” First Ho. Decl. para. 2. Insofar as ChipViewer is concerned, the examiner
understood this testimony to mean that Ho and Tuan used ChipViewer to view the
RailMill outputs rather than that they invented ChipViewer per se. Second Office Action
66.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the declaration assert that the to the extent the RailMill document
and the Arcadia Manual refer to “RailMill and the use of ChipViewer to display the
output from RailMill,” they describe “our invention, and the work of our team at Epic
Design Technology, Inc.” First Ho Declaration paras. 4-5. The examiner criticized the
“our team” language as creating an ambiguity regarding who invented the subject
matter relied on in the references. Second Office Action 65. The examiner also
18 Paper No. 17, received October 24, 2003.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007