Appeal No. 2006-1699 Page 3
Application No. 10/242,669
response to the numbers of timing as well as control registers set forth in the claims on
appeal” (decision, page 6).
Appellant’s argument (request, page 5) to the contrary notwithstanding, the
evidence submitted by the appellant does not establish that “the prior art does not meet the
requirements of 35 USC § 102(a).”
The so-called ‘supporting evidence’ submitted by appellant in Exhibits 2 and 3 is
nothing more than bits and pieces of the structure set forth in claim 1 on appeal (request,
page 5).
Appellant argues that the Rule 131 declaration was “sufficient to meet the
requirements of swearing behind the reference” (request, page 6). We still maintain that
the Rule 131 declaration was not sufficient to antedate the Telya publication date.
Appellant argues (request, page 7) that paragraphs 8 through 10 of the declaration
“individually and collectively establish that Jameson conceived of the invention prior to
July 11, 2002.” The noted paragraphs in the declaration discuss Exhibits 2 and 3. As
indicated supra, Exhibits 2 and 3 do not establish that Jameson conceived of the invention
prior to the July 11, 2002 publication date.
Appellant argues (request, pages 7 through 10) that the Board misinterpreted the
McGuckian and the Katz cases. We stand by our interpretations of these cases outlined in
the decision. Neither of the cases supports the appellant’s erroneous interpretation of their
holdings.
We agree with the appellant’s argument (request, page 11) that the “Jameson
Declaration is fact evidence.” As indicated in the decision, the declaration did not,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007