In re DeBaun, Appeal No. 82-530.

Decision Date27 August 1982
Docket NumberAppeal No. 82-530.
PartiesIn re Kenneth W. DeBAUN.
CourtU.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

Ernest M. Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., Henry W. Tarring, II, Associate Sol., Washington, D. C., for Patent and Trademark Office.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges.

NIES, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of claims 9 and 10 in application Serial No. 952,695 for reissue of Patent No. 3,964,519 filed November 18, 1974, for "Fluid Velocity Equalizing Apparatus." The rejection was for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 1031 in view of a disclosure in a patent issued to appellant and Noll less than one year prior to November 18, 1974. The board held that the reference may be used against appellant. We reverse.

Background

The invention "relates generally to apparatus for conditioning the flow pattern of fluids flowing in conduits ... particularly ... for equalizing the velocity profile of fluid flowing in a conduit." The invention is stated to be "useful in the type of apparatus disclosed in U. S. Patent 3,842,678 issued to Kenneth W. DeBaun and Robert W. Noll on October 22, 1974." The DeBaun and Noll patent ('678 patent) filed June 1, 1973, is the sole reference forming the basis of the examiner's rejection.

The claims of the present application are directed specifically to the "equalizer honeycomb section 4."2 Claim 9 is representative.

9. Apparatus for equalizing the velocity of flowing fluid including duct means defining a flowing stream of fluid; at least one open-ended honeycomb equalizing section substantially coaxial with said duct means, intercepting and conducting the fluid therethrough, said honeycomb section having a plurality of parallel passages across substantially the entire duct cross-section wherein the ratio of surface area of each passage to the cross-sectional area of each passage is at least 30 and the end of the honeycomb facing the stream of fluid is curved to flatten the velocity profile of the stream. Emphasis ours.

The examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the '678 patent. The '678 patent and the subject application disclose an identical passageway with an equalizer honeycomb section but the '678 patent neither describes nor claims the equalizer honeycomb section's ratio of surface area to cross-sectional area. Further, the reference claims a complete air sampling system including the passageway containing the basic equalizer honeycomb section as shown above while appellant claims only the passageway containing the improved equalizer honeycomb section.

Appellant concedes that the equalizer honeycomb section of the '678 patent is "essentially constructed in accordance with applicant's invention." He further concedes, for purposes of appeal, that the relationship of surface area to cross-sectional area is "part of the teaching of the '678 patent or would be obvious in view thereof."

To overcome the rejection, the examiner required that appellant file an affidavit under Rule 1313 and an affidavit by Noll disclaiming inventorship of the basic equalizer honeycomb section.

No affidavit by Noll was submitted to comply with the examiner's requirement. Instead, appellant's attorney filed a declaration stating, inter alia, that "he is informed and believes" that Noll's whereabouts are not known to Air Monitor Corporation.4 Noll was an employee of Air Monitor Corp. at the time the application for the '678 patent was filed but has since left its employ.

Appellant also filed the following declaration:

I, KENNETH W. DEBAUN, declare as follows:
1. I am the inventor and applicant of the invention entitled "FLUID VELOCITY EQUALIZING APPARATUS", disclosed and claimed in U. S. Application Serial No. 952,695 filed October 19, 1978.
2. The invention described and claimed in said application was conceived by me prior to June 1, 1973, as evidenced by the following facts which are of my own knowledge:
(a) Attached hereto5 as an exhibit is a drawing No. 73-315, dated 3-15-73, which illustrates a velocity profile development of an apparatus having open-ended honeycomb velocity equalizing sections as originally conceived by me; that in accordance with my conception, the drawing shows an open-ended honeycomb equalizing section substantially coaxial with a fluid duct, said honeycomb sections having a plurality of parallel passages across substantially the entire duct cross section, the ratio of surface area of each passage to the cross-sectional area of each passage at least 30, the end of the honeycomb facing the stream of fluid being curved to flatten the velocity profile of the stream. In addition, the length of the parallel passages, as shown, vary over the cross-sectional area of said conduit to equalize the fluid flow velocities across the cross-sectional area of the conduit;
(b) Drawing No. 73-315 was given to patent counsel for purposes of preparing a patent application on an isokinetic sampling system of which I am co-inventor with Robert W. Noll, said application having been filed on June 1, 1973, and resulted in U. S. Patent No. 3,842,678, issued October 22, 1974.
(c) Insofar as the invention of my pending application Serial No. 952,695 is suggested by drawing No. 73-315, or by anything contained in U. S. Patent No. 3,842,678, it was originally conceived by me and described to patent counsel prior to June 1, 1973.
3. That my invention as covered by claims of U. S. Application Serial No. 952,695 was described in the specification of U. S. Patent No. 3,842,678 merely to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, under the advise sic of applicant's attorneys.

The examiner maintained the rejection, concluding that appellant's declaration was insufficient under Rule 131 to overcome the reference.

The board sustained the § 103 rejection. While agreeing with appellant that Noll's disclaimer should not be required, the board concluded:

we do not find that the declarations are sufficient to show that the appellant is solely the inventor of the subject matter claimed by this application.

On rehearing, the board rephrased its conclusion:

We are still of the opinion that the declarations on file are not sufficient to show that the appellant is the inventor of the subject matter claimed by this application as necessary to overcome a Section 103 rejection based upon the earlier patent.
OPINION
I

We agree with the examiner and the board that appellant could overcome, or "antedate," the '678 patent with a proper Rule 131 declaration. In re Facius, 56 CCPA 1348, 1355, 408 F.2d 1396, 1404, 161 USPQ 294, 300 (1969). We also agree that the declarations herein are insufficient under Rule 131 as they fail to allege facts showing the necessary diligence and/or reduction to practice of the invention now claimed.6 See In re Harry, 51 CCPA 1541, 333 F.2d 920, 142 USPQ 164 (1964). However, the examiner erred in concluding that a Rule 131 affidavit is the only way of overcoming the rejection made in this case. See, e.g., In re Land, 54 CCPA 806, 825, 368 F.2d 866, 879-80, 151 USPQ 621, 633 n. 11 (1966).

In In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1982) issued concurrently, we have reaffirmed that an applicant's own work, even though publicly disclosed prior to his application, may not be used against him as a reference, absent the existence of a time bar to his application.

Thus, the '678 patent to appellant and Noll, having issued less than one year before the filing date of appellant's original '519 patent application, is only available as a reference if the pertinent disclosure is not the sole work of appellant. As in Katz, supra, the specific issue raised by this appeal is an evidentiary one.

II

While the board recognized that the declarations filed herein under Rule 1327 must be considered, see Facius, 56 CCPA supra at 1352, 408 F.2d at 1402, 161 USPQ at 297 n.4, the board did not, in our view, focus on the significant question.

The board tested the declarations to determine whether they supported appellant's assertion of inventorship of the improved equalizer honeycomb section here claimed. That was error.

The proper subject of inquiry was ... what the evidence showed as to who invented the subject matter disclosed by the reference which was relied on to support the rejection. In re Land, 54 CCPA at 825, 368 F.2d at 879-80, 151 USPQ at 633 n.11 (emphasis in original).

The only question raised by the rejection is whether appellant invented the relevant disclosure in the '678 patent.

III

The '678 patent is silent with respect to who invented the basic equalizer honeycomb section itself, and we do not presume that it is the invention of appellant and Noll jointly or of either of them.

The existence of combination claims does not evidence inventorship by the patentee of the individual elements or sub-combinations thereof if the latter are not separately claimed apart from the combination. It is clear that the inventor of a combination may not have invented any element of that combination, much less each of the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Evans Medical Ltd. v. American Cyanamid Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 10, 1998
    ...In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1349 (Fed.Cir.1983); In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454-55 (Cust.&Pat.App.1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 462 (Cust.&Pat.App. 1982).24 Thus, if Montaraz were a co-inventor with respect to the patents in suit, the Montaraz et al. article would not be prior art an......
  • Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, CIVA CV03S2875NE.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • July 12, 2006
    ...question, represent the work of a common inventive entity." Riverwood, 324 F.3d at 1356 (emphasis supplied) (citing In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 462 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1982)). On this issue, ClearCube offers little beyond the names of the inventors listed on the patents. Assuming, but not dec......
  • In re Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts & Related Subsystems ('858) Patent Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • October 23, 2014
    ...of a common inventive entity." Riverwood Int'l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co. , 324 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re DeBaun , 687 F.2d 459, 462 (CCPA 1982) ). Here, CleanTech admits that the '858 patent issued to "another" inventive entity. MDN 1160 at 17. It argues, however, that ......
  • Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • January 27, 2010
    ... ...          Riverwood Int'l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2003) citing In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 462, (CCPA ... 689 F. Supp.2d 942 ... 1982). The Court held that if Ziegler was the sole inventor of the portions of the '806 patent relied upon by the defendant in its obviousness arguments, then the '806 patent is not prior art to the '789 patent. Id. at 1357 The Court ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • A Decision Poised to Pivot on Credibility
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • July 5, 2022
    ...invented the underlying technology reported in the publication and on which the examiner relied to reject the claims. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 462 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (concluding that declarations are insufficient where “they fail to allege facts showing the necessary diligence and/or r......
  • A Decision Poised To Pivot On Credibility
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 6, 2022
    ...invented the underlying technology reported in the publication and on which the examiner relied to reject the claims. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 462 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (concluding that declarations are insufficient where "they fail to allege facts showing the necessary diligence and/or r......
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §7.11 Prior Invention Under §102(g)
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 7 Novelty, No Loss of Right, and Priority [Pre-America Invents Act of 2011]
    • Invalid date
    ...Cir. 2014).[940] Solvay II, 742 F.3d at 1000.[941] Solvay II, 742 F.3d at 1000.[942] Solvay II, 742 F.3d at 1000 (quoting In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (citing Litchfield v. Eigen, 535 F.2d 72, 76 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); citing also 3A Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents. §10.06......
  • Chapter §7.05 Anticipation Under §102(a)
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 7 Novelty, No Loss of Right, and Priority [Pre-America Invents Act of 2011]
    • Invalid date
    ...Putative Prima Facie §102(a) Reference by Establishing an Earlier Invention Date"), supra.[275] See §7.05[A][2][b][276] See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J.); In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J.). These two foundation cases are examined in further detail i......
  • Chapter §7.09 Description in Another's Earlier-Filed Published Application or Patent Under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 7 Novelty, No Loss of Right, and Priority [Pre-America Invents Act of 2011]
    • Invalid date
    ...be taken after the lapse of years from the time of the alleged invention." (citation omitted))).[807] EmeraChem, 859 F.3d at 1346.[808] 687 F.2d 459 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J.).[809] 687 F.2d 450 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J.).[810] The relevant portion of DeBaun's declaration stated: 2. The inv......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT