Ex parte JOHN W. PODUSKA, JR. - Page 9




          Appeal No. 96-2379                                                          
          Application 07/837,240                                                      


          which includes both location and intensity information of the               
          images to be displayed.  In his answer, the examiner specifically           
          points out and identifies, for the first time, where in Comins is           
          disclosed such input data including both location and intensity             
          information (answer at 7-8).                                                
               In the reply brief at 3 and 12-13, the appellant argues that           
          prior to the examiner's answer, the examiner's position was that            
          Comins did not disclose input data which includes both location             
          and intensity information, and therefore it was unfair for the              
          examiner to maintain an opposite position for the first time in             
          the examiner's answer.  The appellant asserts that at this late             
          date it was too late to amend the claims and thus the examiner's            
          taking a flip-flop is prejudicial to the appellant.                         
               It does appear to us that the examiner has flip-flopped on             
          his position with regard to the limitation at issue.  However,              
          that fact does not help the appellant in this appeal.  If the               
          appellant felt prejudiced by the examiner's action, the                     
          appropriate recourse would have been to petition the Commissioner           
          for a re-opening of prosecution so that the new position of the             
          examiner can be addressed or the claims amended.  The appellant             
          did not do that.  Alternatively, the appellant can submit                   
          substantive arguments in the reply brief to rebut the new points            

                                          9                                           





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007