Appeal 2007-2532
Application 10/608,791
Borkowski, 505 F.2d at 718–19, 184 USPQ at 33 (emphasis added).
Here, Jackson has provided what appears to be processed data, not
original notebooks. Aside from the list of contents at page 2 of the
declaration, there appear to be no unequivocal dates on the exhibits. Indeed,
Jackson even fails to allege a particular date on which an actual reduction to
practice was accomplished and recognized. Moreover, the declaration fails
to point out what facts, in the opinion of the declarant, were established.
There is no explanation relating the exhibits to the limitations of any of the
claims. Jackson does not even appear to have alleged in its principal brief
which type of memory—i.e., transition arising from change of chemical
bonds or from change of organic polymer doping—was actually reduced to
practice. Jackson's Declaration amounts at most to mere pleading. As the
Examiner points out, "there is nothing we can do but guess at what the
drawings represent." (Answer at 11.) We decline to guess at facts it was
Jackson's burden to establish.
On the present record, Jackson has failed to carry its burden of
antedating Stasiak as prior art.
Claim 1 requires that the organic polymer layer have at least two
detectable memory states, “transitions between which arise from one of
changes in chemical bonds and changes in organic polymer doping.”
Jackson argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over
Stasiak because Stasiak fails to disclose transitions between memory states
arising by changes in chemical bonds or by changes in organic polymer
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013