Appeal No. 97-2761 Page 3
Application No. 07/981,126
petitioning the Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181. It is not
within our jurisdiction [see 35 U.S.C. 134 and 37 CFR 1.191] to
decide whether an examiner should have entered a reply brief.
Thus, any argument by appellant anent the entry of a reply
brief is unpersuasive to us as to the patentability of the
claims under rejection.
Appellant next contends that our decision committed
reversible error with regard to the claimed feature of an
adhesive tape as compared to the teaching in Uchida of a white
level reference being “fixed in position.” More particularly,
appellant contends that the art did not teach or suggest
appellant’s claimed “adhesive...tape.” As we pointed out in
our decision, Uchida discloses that the white level reference 2
is a “piece of white tape or paper” and that this tape is
“fixed in position.” Since the tape in Uchida is “fixed in
position,” it would have been clear to artisans that the tape
was “adhered” to that position, making it an “adhesive” tape,
as claimed. This suggestion, by Uchida, of employing an
adhesive tape, in view of the artisan’s knowledge that a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007