Appeal No. 1997-2021
Application No. 08/500,231
Flom and Goman, it has not been convincingly established to us
by their own declarations that each of them respectively
agreed to the confidentiality concerning any demonstrations of
the prototype claimed invention before the critical date. It
is not sufficient for appellant and/or other people to make
declarations that other people were made subject to
confidentiality and the complete control of the facility was
maintained prior to the critical date without confirming
declarations or affidavits from the respectively named
individuals. As set forth at the bottom of page 4 of our
original opinion, we can conclude only that not all of the
people who saw the video booth at the Commercial Craft
facility were made subject to secrecy agreements and that
complete control of that facility was not maintained prior to
the critical date. The public policy considerations
underlying the prior public use provisions of 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) demand no less.
Finally, we considered at page 5 of our original opinion,
the particulars regarding the alleged special consideration
aspects of appellant's arguments relating to independent claim
31 and its dependent claims. This claim focuses on the two-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007