Ex Parte 5872952 et al - Page 32




              Appeal No. 2005-2512                                                                                         
              Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431                                                                         

              relevant to this appeal, commented on the First Ho Declaration as follows (the Second                        
              Ho Declaration is not addressed):                                                                            
                     The declaration makes the following assertions:                                                       
                            (a) The invention was made when appellants were at Epic Design;                                
                            (b) Declarant and co-inventor created RailMill and integrated                                  
                     RailMill and ChipViewer; and                                                                          
                            (c) Arcadia manual produced by Archer [S]ystems[:] “to the extent                              
                     these documents describe [refer to] RailMill and the use of ChipViewer to                             
                     display the outputs from RailMill, they [it] describe[s] our invention, and the                       
                     work of our team at Epic...”.                                                                         
                     Note that statement (c) is conclusory in nature with no evidence or                                   
                     statement of facts to support it.  Furthermore, there is no claim or                                  
                     explanation of derivation or attribution on the part of the authors/publishers                        
                     of the references.                                                                                    
                     In any event, Patrick Ho has admitted that ChipViewer was not his                                     
                     invention and that he is not the author of the Arcadia Manual or the                                  
                     RailMill documents.  Patent Owner amended his claims to be limited to (1)                             
                     RailMill and the (2) integration of RailMill and ChipViewer, which is what                            
                     Patrick Ho identifies in the declaration as his invention.                                            
              Petition Decision at 4 (emphasis added).  The TC Director’s conclusion that the First Ho                     
              Declaration is insufficient to prove derivation or attribution in the absence of supporting                  
              declarations by the (unnamed) authors or by the publishers of the RailMill documents is                      
              not binding on the examiner or this Board, because, in our view, that conclusion                             
              concerns the substantive merits of the declaration and thus is outside the scope of a TC                     
              Director’s authority regarding Rule 132 affidavits and declarations, which is limited “to                    
              [their] formal sufficiency and propriety.”  MPEP § 1002.02(c), item 3(c).  Nor do we find                    
              ourselves in agreement with the merits of the TC Director’s position, which is not                           
              supported in the Petition Decision by the citation of any decisional authority.                              

                                                            32                                                             





Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007