Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 broadest reasonable construction of the term “unidirectional seal” includes a
2 seal that engages an interior wall when an upper barrel is drawn away from a
3 lower barrel but does not engage when the upper barrel is pushed towards
4 the lower barrel or vice versa.
5
6 i) The Rejection of Claims 28-30, 34 and 36-39 as
7 Anticipated by Leaphart ‘753 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
8
9 The Examiner found that Leaphart ‘753 describes the claimed subject
10 matter presented in claims 28-30, 34 and 36-39. The Examiner states that
11 Leaphart ‘753 constitutes prior art against Leaphart’s involved application
12 claims as:
13 The ‘753 patent has a different inventive entity than that of the
14 instant application, and is therefore prior art thereto.
15
16 (Answer 4).
17 The Examiner is correct that the ‘753 patent has a different inventive
18 entity than the ‘417 application. Specifically, while the Leapharts are listed
19 on both the ‘753 patent as ‘417 application as inventors, Carlos Schoolcraft
20 and Michael Ernst are not named as inventors on the ‘753 patent but are
21 listed as inventors on the ‘417 application. Leaphart’s entitlement to
22 35 U.S.C. § 120 benefit however, is not predicated on having identical
23 inventive entities. Rather, 35 U.S.C. § 120 benefit may be obtained where
24 the child application contains at least one inventor in common with the
25 parent application.
26 We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 28-30, 34 and
27 36-39 over Leaphart ‘753. Specifically, if Leaphart ‘753 describes and
28 enables the claimed subject matter then the claims are entitled to the benefit
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013