The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NEIL ANDREW JAMESON
__________
Appeal No. 2006-1699
Application No. 10/242,669
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated June 22, 2006, the Board found that evidence presented by the
appellant was not sufficient to antedate the effective filing date of the Telya publication
which was used by the examiner to reject all of the claims on appeal.
Appellant now argues (request, page 2) that “[t]he Board, in its decision, appears to
focus on evidence prior to the Telya date, i.e., Rule 131 Declaration and Exhibits 2 & 3,
while ignoring the evidence of invention on the Telya date, i.e. the Rule 131 Declaration
and Exhibit 1.” We find that “[t]he mere recital of timing registers, control registers, an
interface and a state machine in the last paragraph on page 1 of Exhibit 1 is not evidence
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007