Costello Laurel Abbot Hardy

14. On August 7, 1997, practitioner Costello filed a patent application identifying Laurel,

Abbot, and Hardy as inventors. Each named inventor assigned his patent rights to Burns just

prior to the application being filed. Laurel and Abbot, alone, jointly invented the subject

matter of independent claim 1 in the application. Hardy contributed to inventing the subject

matter of claim 2. Claim 2 properly depends upon claim 1. The examiner rejected claim 1 and

claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by a journal article by Allen, dated July 9,

1997. Laurel, Abbot, and Hardy are readily available to provide evidence in support of and

sign an antedating affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 showing reduction to practice of the

subject matter of claims 1 and 2 prior to July 9, 1997. Which of the following may properly

make an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 2.?

(A) Laurel and Abbot.

(B) Laurel, Abbot, and Hardy.

(C) Laurel, Hardy and Burns.

(D) Burns only.

(E) None of the above.

14. ANSWER: (B). MPEP 715.04. (A) is incorrect since it cannot be shown that less than all

the inventors invented the subject matter of claim 2. (C) and (D) are incorrect since the assignee

can make an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131, only when it is not possible to produce the

affidavit of the inventor. The facts indicate that all inventors were readily available produce the

affidavit. (E) is incorrect since (B) is correct.