Appeal 2007-0137
Application 09/489,655
over Van Iten (US 5,188,625, issued February 23, 1993). We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
A paper styled "RULE 1.132 DECLARATION OF SHERRY
DASKAL" (hereinafter "Daskal Declaration") is appended to the Appeal
Brief (filed October 18, 2002) as Exhibit 6 and referred to on page 15
(footnote 4) of the Appeal Brief. The Appeal Brief does not indicate
whether the Daskal Declaration was previously of record in the application
and, if so, the date of its submission. Our review of the electronic records
for this application did not reveal submission of the Daskal Declaration prior
to its submission as Exhibit 6 in the Appeal Brief. The Examiner's Answer
(mailed October 3, 2003) makes no reference to the Daskal Declaration.
Therefore, the record is not clear as to whether the Daskal Declaration has
been entered and considered by the Examiner.
The Appeal Brief also refers to a paper styled "RULE 1.132
DECLARATION OF RABBI SHMUEL NEIMAN" (hereinafter "Neiman
Declaration") appended as Exhibit 4 (Appeal Br. 4, 5, 17, 18). Our review
of the electronic record for this application revealed that the Neiman
Declaration was submitted in the application on January 23, 2002, but did
not reveal any reference to the Neiman Declaration by the Examiner. The
record thus is not clear as to whether the Neiman Declaration has been
considered by the Examiner.
We also note that neither the Neiman Declaration nor the Daskal
Declaration meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.132 and 1.68 in that
neither includes a warning that willful false statements and the like are
punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and may
jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013