Appeal No. 96-1444
Application 08/130,577
referred to. The appeal is indicated on the internal papers
setting the panel to be an "On Brief" case. Mr. Feinberg did
not have the file in front of him when conversing with counsel
about whether a waiver had been received.
Therefore, the appeal was properly decided On Brief. In
any case, appellants do not state what the remedy should be if
the decision was inadvertently made without an oral hearing
assuming a request was in the file or assuming that the
request was lost in the mail. There is no denial of due
process of law. See 37 CFR § 1.194(a) (1998) ("An appeal
decided without an oral hearing will receive the same
consideration by the [Board] as appeals decided after oral
hearing.").
Obviousness
Appellants discuss claim 1 and state that "[t]he other
independent claims . . . differ from the prior art in ways
similar to those described in conjunction with claim 1" (RR7).
Thus, the arguments and our response are limited to claim 1.
Appellants argue that our interpretation of images A, B,
C of Tatsumi as "independent" images "is at odds with the term
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007