Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
from obtaining copies of Wanthal or attending the Closed Session.
Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that any U.S.
industries or U.S. citizens were ever denied from accessing
or distributing the information in Wanthal based on the above
regulations. See the record in its entirety.
As is apparent from the record, the declarant has no
personal knowledge of the so-called “Closed Session” in question.
See the Owens declaration, page 1. Nor is the declarant aware
how the information in Wanthal was disseminated. See the Owens
declaration in its entirety. As a result of the speculative
nature of the declarant’s statements in the Owens declaration
regarding the so-called “Closed Session” and ambiguity relating
to the so-called “restriction”, the appellants were required to
provide additional information to clarify the facts in this case
consistent with 37 CFR ' 41.50(d)(2004). See the ORDER dated
April 5, 2005. Specifically, we stated at pages 3 and 4 of the
ORDER that:
As is apparent from the Owens declaration, the
declarant did not attend the Closed Session in question
in which the information in the Wanthal et al.
reference was disseminated. Nor was there any
indication in the Owens declaration that the declarant
was informed by all of the individuals (e.g., authors,
employers, etc....), including SAMPE, who had access to
[information on] the Wanthal et al reference regarding
its availability to the general public or contractors
in this country. ... Thus, pursuant to 37 CFR '
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007