Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
Archer rather Epic personnel, that does not contradict Ho’s testimony, which insofar as
ChipViewer is concerned credits Ho and Tuan only with using ChipViewer to display the
RailMill outputs.
The examiner’s alternative argument that the declaration testimony is
contradicted by the above-noted ongoing litigation (Ans. 12) is not understood and will
not be further addressed, except to note that that litigation involves the aforementioned
‘053 patent rather than the ‘952 patent, which is under reexamination in this proceeding.
The examiner also contends that Ho’s testimony is insufficient to remove the
RailMill documents as prior art in the absence of a supporting declaration by the authors
of those documents. Those documents fail to name any authors and Ho testified that
he does not know their identities. See Second Ho Decl. para. 5 (“The [RailMill]
documents attached hereto as Exhibits B-D describe RailMill as well. I do not know who
the actual authors of the documents are”). As support for this position, the examiner
cites a decision by the Director of Technology Center (TC) 2100 on a petition appellant
filed in response to a requirement for information22 issued by the examiner. “Response
to Petition Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.59" (hereinafter “Petition Decision”).23 The Petition
Decision, in addition to modifying the examiner’s requirement for information in ways not
22 Second Office Action at 1-9.
23 Paper No. 25, mailed June 4, 2004.
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007