Appeal No. 1999-0602
Application 08/469,393
magnetic field ratio and the minimum detectable sensitivity claimed. None of these
positions has been traversed by appellant in the brief and reply brief. Because of
appellant’s acquiesce to these positions, we agree with them and sustain the rejection
accordingly.
Appellant’s only argument as to this rejection presented in the brief and reply brief
relates to alleged delays during the prosecution of the application that are considered to
be the fault of the PTO rather than of applicant. We do not agree with appellant’s
conclusion that the "public is not harmed" by any patent term extension caused by such
delays. Thus appellant’s argument essentially admits that there is a time-wise extension
of the subject matter encompassed by the claims in the present appeal over those of the
earlier patent. Appellant presents no legal precedent to support the conclusion that the
rejection should be reversed by us. The only delays in which we are aware that may bear
on this type of issue occur when a second filed application issues before the first filed
application, where the first filed application issues later in time with broader claims than
those of the second in time filed application. Since the present application was filed after
the parent application and is still pending, that earlier fact scenario does not apply to the
facts presented in this appeal. Since appellant has presented no persuasive arguments to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007