Appeal 2007-1335
Application 10/449,558
6. Julio C. Palmaz and Richard A. Schatz are joint inventions of the ‘558
Application (See Amendment to Correct Inventorship received Nov. 24,
2003).
7. The ‘115 Application was co-pending with the ‘246 Application.
8. The ‘558 Application, the application at issue in this appeal, is not
entitled to the benefit of the previously filed ‘246 Application under 35
U.S.C. § 120 because the Specification of the ‘558 Application does not
contain a specific reference to the ‘246 Application as required by the
statute.
9. Pinchuk has an effective date of Sep. 1, 1998, which is after the Mar. 28,
1988 filing date of the ‘246 Application, but before the Oct. 4, 1988
effective filing date of the ‘558 Application at issue in this appeal.
10. Joint inventor Palmaz filed a Declaration under Rule 1.131 to antedate
the Pinchuk patent. The Declaration states that the invention claimed in the
‘558 Application was disclosed in the earlier filed ‘246 Application, which
matured into the ‘417 Patent (Palmaz Dec. 1). A copy of the ‘417 Patent is
attached to the Declaration “as evidence of the conception and constructive
reduction to practice of the invention claimed in” the ‘558 Application “prior
to the effective date of” Pinchuk (Palmaz Dec. 2).
11. Joint inventor Schatz filed a Declaration under Rule 1.131 to antedate
the Pinchuk patent. The Declaration states that the invention claimed in the
‘558 Application was disclosed in the earlier filed ‘246 Application, which
matured into the ‘417 Patent (Schatz Dec. 1). A copy of the ‘417 Patent is
attached to the Declaration “as evidence of the conception and constructive
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013