Appeal No. 1997-2021
Application No. 08/500,231
video booth before or after the critical date of March 22,
1987. There is also no statement as to where the booth was
located when it was seen by the declarant. His subsequently
filed declaration filed on July 31, 1995, does not cure these
defects even though it does indicate that a sense of
confidentiality was agreed to while at the same time no year
was specified as to when he observed the prototype booth in
the Commercial Craft facility. Again, since this was a
subsequently filed declaration, we remain unpersuaded that he
agreed to any sense of confidentiality before the critical
date.
In essence, we remain unconvinced that all of the people
who observed the prototype video booth in operation before the
critical date agreed to the confidentiality and limited
control thereof at the Commercial Craft facility as required
at the direction of the presiding judge in the Federal
District Court discussed earlier in this opinion and noted at
the top of page 3 of our earlier opinion. Even if we consider
collectively both
declarations from each of the three declarants, McLaughlin,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007