Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 49




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1    prior to Yurt's January 7, 1991, effective date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2) coupled with                               
          2    reasonable diligence from prior to that date up to appellant's April 11, 1991, filing date.                            
          3            A showing of prior invention must address every limitation of the rejected claim or                            
          4    claims:                                                                                                                
          5                    (a) When any claim of an application or a patent under                                                 
          6            reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected                                  
          7            claim, the owner of the patent under reexamination, or the party qualified                                     
          8            under §§ 1.42, 1.43, or 1.47, may submit an appropriate oath or                                                
          9            declaration to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected                                       
         10            claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the                                    
         11            rejection is based.                                                                                            
         12                                                                                                                           
         13    37 CFR § 1.131(a) (2006).  As noted by the examiner, Final Action at 202, para. 367, these                             
         14    declarations were filed in order to overcome the previous (now withdrawn) rejections of claims                         
         15    93, 95, 96, 99, 100, and 102-04 based on Yurt, not the rejections of claim 11, the sole claim now                      
         16    rejected over that reference.  As a result, these declarations make no attempt to explain how the                      
         17    facts recited therein demonstrate either (a) prior conception of the subject matter of claim 11,                       
         18    including its recitation of using two compression techniques to compress the response to the                           
         19    query (not recited in any of claims 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, and 102-04), or (b) the exercise of                           
         20    reasonable diligence in reducing that claimed subject matter to practice.  Nor does the brief offer                    
         21    such an explanation.  See In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974)                              
         22    (Rule 131 showing held deficient because “[t]he original and supplemental affidavits together                          
         23    with the accompanying comments do not adequately explain what facts or data appellant is                               
         24    relying upon to show a completion of the invention prior to April 13, 1961.”).                                         
         25                                                                                                                           
                                                            - 49 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007