Appeal No. 2006-1699 Page 2
Application No. 10/242,669
that the appellant had conceived or reduced to practice the specifically recited claimed
invention” on the Telya publication date of July 11, 2002 (decision, page 7).
Appellant argues throughout the request that the Board disregarded evidence
submitted by the appellant in favor of our own opinions. We disagree. The evidence
submitted by appellant was weighed against the evidence of record (e.g., the claims on
appeal), and it was not found to demonstrate that the appellant had reduced to practice the
specifically claimed invention on or before the noted Telya publication date.
Appellant argues (request, page 4) that “[t]he sum total of these three fact
statements, i.e., paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 from the Rule 131 declaration establishes that Mr.
Jameson invented the subject matter of the claimed invention on or before July 11, 2002
and his testimony is that Exhibit 1, the invention disclosure form, describes that claimed
invention.” As indicated supra and throughout the decision, Exhibit 1 does not describe the
claimed invention.
Appellant argues (request, pages 4 and 5) that “the only reasonable decision the
Board can make is to find that there is at least ‘some evidence’ that Mr. Jameson invented
the appealed invention on or before July 11, 2002, the Telya publication date.” We still
maintain that the “only supporting evidence of record is Exhibit 2 which vaguely mentions
control registers in connection with a NAND, and Exhibit 3 which only mentions a NAND
in connection with registers in general” (decision, page 6). “Such broad statements in the
exhibits certainly do not provide evidence that the appellant had conceived or reduced to
practice the specifically recited timing registers, the specifically recited control registers
that are programmable prior to each transfer, and the sequence generator operable in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007