Appeal No. 2006-2811 Page 4
Application No. 09/973,646
quarantined.” Response received February 26, 2004, page 2. Appellants also stated
that the second Rule 132 declaration was intended to show that “Mr. Haruta . . . along
with the three prior declarants, are the true inventors” of the elastomer/tungsten
composition disclosed by Sakaki. The Rule 132 declarations also state that “[w]e
are the inventors of the invention described and claimed in application Serial
No. 09/973 646, filed on October 9, 2001,” and Declaration filed with the application
includes all four of the present inventors. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the
evidence of record shows “the ‘we’ stated in the Declarations collectively refers to all
four of the present inventors.” Appeal Brief, page 5.
The examiner also notes that the Rule 132 declarations, on page 2, lines 2-4,
state “that the ‘entitled Balance Weight for Vehicle Wheel was invented independently
by the inventors of U.S. Patent No. 6,364,422.’” Examiner’s Answer, page 10. The
examiner argues that this statement
appears to contradict the rest of the declaration. That is, the declaration is
made to establish the inventors of the present application are the true
inventors of Sakaki et al., i.e. US 6,364,422, however, by stating the US
6,364,422 was invented “independently” by the inventors of US 6,364,422,
namely, Sakaki, Kadomaru, and Mizoguchi, it appears that the inventors of
the present application are not the true inventors of US 6,364,422 which
as disclosed by applicants was invented “independently” by Sakaki,
Kadomaru, and Mizoguchi.
Id.
The examiner seems to misapprehend the point of the Rule 132 declarations.
These declarations are intended to show that the invention claimed in the present
application was invented by the present applicants. That is, the point of the declarations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013