Question: Employees Larry and Curly work for Taylor, Inc., each with knowledge of the other's work, and with obligations to assign to Taylor inventions conceived while employed by Taylor. Larry invented a novel coating apparatus which utilized a spring released mechanism that worked well at temperatures of at least 32掳 F. Larry discussed his invention with Curly during work at Taylor. After their discussion, Curly conceived of an improvement and developed a piston activated mechanism for use in Larry's novel coating apparatus. Curly's piston activated mechanism worked extremely well at temperatures between 45 to 60掳F. On April 8, 1997, Curly filed a patent application in the PTO disclosing the fact that Larry invented a novel coating apparatus and claiming an improved coating apparatus with a piston activated mechanism. Curly's specification disclosed the excellent results obtained when the piston activated mechanism was used at temperatures between 45 to 60掳F. On August 14, 1997, Larry's application claiming the coating apparatus with the spring released mechanism for use at temperatures of at least 32掳F was filed in the PTO. On December 29, 1998, a patent was granted to Larry. In an Office action dated March 18, 1999, the examiner rejected the claims in Curly's application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(g)/103 over Larry's patent in view of a patent granted to Moe on August 25, 1992. Larry's patent claims the coating apparatus with the spring released mechanism for operation at temperatures of at least 32掳 F. The patent to Moe discloses a piston activated mechanism (substantially similar to Curly's piston activated mechanism) in combination with a different coating apparatus. The Moe patent also discloses that the piston activated mechanism would only operate at temperatures below 32掳 F. The examiner properly found that substitution of the piston activated mechanism of Moe for the spring released mechanism in Larry's coating apparatus would have been obvious. As a registered practitioner hired by Taylor to prosecute both the Larry and Curly applications, which of the following best describes the course of action you should take to provide Taylor with all the patent protection it is entitled to receive?
A. Traverse the rejection by arguing that the rejection is improper, and in support thereof, submit an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.132 signed by an officer of Taylor, Inc. attesting to the fact that at the time the inventions were made, Larry and Curly were obligated to assign their inventions to Taylor, Inc.
B. Traverse the rejection by arguing that the rejection is improper and provide an affidavit signed by Larry stating that Curly derived his work from Larry and that both Curly and Larry were under an obligation to assign their inventions to Taylor.
C. Traverse the rejection and submit an affidavit signed by Curly under 37 CFR § 1.131 stating that he made his invention in the United States before Larry filed his patent application and that both Larry and Curly were obligated to assign their inventions to Taylor, Inc. at the time the inventions were made.
D. Amend the Curly application to claim only a piston activated mechanism which operates at temperatures between 45 - 60掳F, and delete the coating apparatus from the claims.
(category: patent，Chinese translation: 专利)