Appeal No. 96-0570
Application No. 08/101,989
each case, we have considered the arguments presented, but we
have not been persuaded that the positions we have taken were
in error.
The Rejections Under Section 112
1. Claim 10. The problem with this claim was that it added to
the basic method “additional interventional therapeutic
procedures,” which we agreed with the examiner had not been
adequately defined in the specification. The appropriate time
to present arguments in opposition to the examiner’s
rejections is in the appeal brief, and arguments not presented
at that time will be refused consideration, unless good cause
is shown (37 CFR § 1.192(a)). The appellants chose not to
respond to this rejection at that time. Inasmuch as no
showing of good cause for this failure to act has been made,
we will not consider the arguments now presented for the first
time.
2. Claim 15. We stand by the comments we made on page 5 of
our decision.
3. Claim 17. The appellants’ offer to correct this problem
by way of amendment does not cause us to alter our position
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007