Appeal No. 95-4081
Application 08/071,895
may not properly be combined with features disclosed in
another reference.
The rule required that an applicant "specify the errors in the
rejection." The intended purpose of the rule was to make the
resolution of appeals more efficient and to avoid the need for
deciding issues not raised by an applicant in an appeal.
In view of the provisions of Rule 192 (1994), we will
decide the appeal on the basis of the arguments actually made
by applicants, as opposed to arguments which might have been--
but were not made. Compare Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery
Products, 866 F.2d 1386, 1388, 9 USPQ2d 1736, 1738 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (since Keebler failed to tell the TTAB it was interested
in Murray's "intent," it could not use intent as a basis for
showing "error" by the TTAB; prescience is not a required
characteristic of the board and the board need not divine all
possible afterthoughts of counsel that might be asserted for
the first time on appeal).
According to their Appeal Brief, "Appellants request that
the claims be considered separately." We decline to consider
each claim separately, because in their Appeal Brief,
applicants present arguments equally applicable to all
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007