Appeal 2007-2532
Application 10/608,791
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On appeal, the burden is on
the applicant to demonstrate reversible error by the Examiner.
Stasiak
Jackson argues that Stasiak has been removed as prior art by the
declaration filed under Rule 131. (Br. at 8–9.)
We begin by noting that Jackson's complaints relating to the conduct
of prosecution are not before us, as our jurisdiction is limited to review of
rejections. Relief from procedural matters believed to have been handled
improperly falls under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, and may be sought in varying
degrees of formality ranging from a request for reconsideration by the
examiner in a telephone interview to a formal petition to the Director. There
is no indication in the record before us that Jackson sought any such relief.
On the merits, Jackson apparently believes that the exhibits speak for
themselves and that no explanation of what they show or how they support
conception and actual reduction to practice is necessary. (Reply at 11.)
Jackson is mistaken. It may sometimes be the case, for example, in a simple
area of art that is within the everyday experience of the ordinary person, that
an explanation of an exhibit would be a superfluous formality. In the
present case, which involves several complex technologies (physics and
chemistry of polymers, including conductive polymers, integrated circuit
manufacture, etc.), explanations are mandatory. Moreover, even a
declaration regarding an actual reduction to practice of an invention in a
simple technology requires some explanation or authentification of what the
exhibits are.
Rule 131 reads in most relevant part:
b) The showing of facts shall be such, in character and weight,
as to establish reduction to practice prior to the effective date of
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013