Appeal No. 1999-2687
Application 08/174,353
images in the original brief, the examiner persuasively responded
to these arguments as was evident in our previous decision.
Appellants are attempting to have new arguments considered in
this request for rehearing, and we will not consider arguments in
a rehearing which have not been first presented during
prosecution of the appeal before the examiner. Therefore, we are
not persuaded by this particular argument that the previous
decision was in error.
Appellants’ third point in the request is that there is
no motivation to combine the references. Specifically,
appellants argue that the Board failed to consider the requisite
legal requirements necessary for the combination of references
[request, pages 6-11].
To the extent that appellants raised issues of motivation
for the combination of references in the briefs, the examiner
responded to these issues in the answer and we responded to these
issues in the previous decision. For the most part, the request
for rehearing simply raises additional arguments which were not
presented in the briefs. As noted above, these are arguments
that appellants could have made and should have made while
prosecution was before the examiner. It is not appropriate for
us to consider arguments made for the first time in a request for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007