Appeal No. 95-4081
Application 08/071,895
describes is not an argument which specifies "the errors in
the rejection" within the meaning of Rule 192 (1994).
Nor have we overlooked the statement in the Reply Brief
(page 1) that "[n]o separate consideration of the claim groups
has occurred" in the Examiner's Answer. There is a good
explanation for the examiner's partially correct statement in
the Examiner's Answer (page 2) to the effect that applicants
failed "to present reasons in support" of each group set out
in the Appeal Brief. It is true that the examiner apparently
overlooked applicants' arguments with respect to claims 20,
25, 32 and 34. But, like the board, an examiner should not
have to respond to arguments which were never made. Keebler
Co. v. Murray Bakery Products, supra.
B. Findings of fact
The record supports the following findings by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The claimed subject matter
1. Claim 26 reads as follows (indentation and
matter in brackets added):
A lubricating or functional fluid composition,
comprising:
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007