Appeal No. 1997-2021
Application No. 08/500,231
made at page 4 of our original opinion that the focus of the
affirmance of the rejection was, as urged by the examiner, the
absence of any curative and subsequent declarations from
declarants McLaughlin, Goman, Floam [sic: Flom] specifying the
year in which they each saw the video booth located in the so-
called Commercial
Craft facility. We did not accept in our original opinion nor
do we accept now, without confirming declarations, appellant's
own declarations or those of others averring or otherwise
declaring that declarants McLaughlin, Goman and Flom agreed to
the confidentially and limited control of the video booth in
this Commercial Craft facility before the critical date. We
do not question that appellant's own direct declaration and
those of other individuals may be probative of a pattern of
behavior of individuals agreeing to the confidentiality and
limited control of access of the video booth at the time it
was seen by the respective individuals.
We made specific findings at the top of page 5 of our
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007