Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 teach, disclose or suggest that the abrasion amount can be determined by
2 controlling the load placed upon the wheel to the plate.” (Br. 4-5.)2
3 We affirm.
4 ISSUE
5 Has Applicant shown error on the part of the Examiner’s holding that
6 the combined disclosures of Hasegawa and Roberts would have led one of
7 ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an apparatus within the scope of appealed
8 claim 12?
9 FINDINGS OF FACT3
10 1. The subject application was filed on August 26, 2002 under 35
11 U.S.C. § 371 (2002) based on PCT Application
12 PCT/US01/06940 filed on March 6, 2001, which claims priority
13 to Japanese Application JP 2000-61915 filed on March 7, 2000.
14 (Application filed August 26, 2002.)
15 2. The real party in interest is said to be 3M INNOVATIVE
16 PROPERTIES CO.
17 3. Applicant’s Specification states that the invention includes a
18 plurality of aspects or embodiments. (Specification 3-4.)
2 Rather than comply with 37 CFR § 41.47(b), which requires that a
request for oral arguments must be made in a separate paper with a
prominent caption (for administrative efficiency), Applicant inserted a
sentence requesting oral arguments in the body of the Brief. (Br. 1)
Because this request does not comply with our rule, we decide this appeal on
the Brief of record.
3 Hereinafter “FF__.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013