Appeal 2007-2190
Application 10/229,489
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4 and 8-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Patel is affirmed.2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(vi)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
2 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) provides that: “Any arguments or
authorities not included in the brief or a reply brief filed pursuant to § 41.41
will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown”;
Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989,
80 USPQ2d 1839, 1847-848 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(citing Beckton Dickinson &
Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800, 17 USPQ2d 1097, 1103 (Fed. Cir.
1990)(Issues not raised in an appellant's opening brief are considered
waived.)). See Cross Medical Products v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
424 F.3d 1293, 1321 n.3, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1683 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(court
declined to address new arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief).
See also, Singh v. Brake, 317 F.3d 1334, 1340, 65 USPQ2d 1641, 1645
(Fed. Cir. 2003)(finding that the Board was acting properly within its
discretion when it refused to consider matters raised in the briefs that could
have been, but were not raised at the outset of the interference).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013