Appeal No. 2006-1699 Page 4
Application No. 10/242,669
however, sufficiently demonstrate that the Telya publication is not a proper reference to be
applied against the claimed invention.
As indicated supra, appellant’s argument (request, page 11) that ‘the last paragraph
of page 1 of Exhibit 1 parallels the structure and interrelationship of structures set out in
claim 1 of the above-identified patent application and therefore, clearly describes the
claimed invention’ is without merit.
In summary, a mere reading of the evidence submitted by appellant reveals that the
evidence falls short of establishing that the Telya publication is antedated by actions
performed by appellant (request, pages 11 and 12). The Board did not “ignore fact
statements and evaluations made in a sworn Rule 131 affidavit” (request, page 13). We
merely disagree with the appellant’s assumption that the sworn facts are sufficient to
remove Telya as a proper reference in the rejection on appeal.
Appellant’s request for rehearing has been granted to the extent that our decision
has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect to making any modifications
to the decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007