Appeal No. 1996-0427
Application 08/210,224
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
the argument shall specify the errors in
the rejection and why the rejected claims
are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
including any specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in
the prior art relied upon in the rejection.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) states:
For each rejection under 37 U.S.C. 103, the
argument shall specify the errors in the
rejection and, if appropriate, the specific
limitations in the rejected claims which
are not described in the prior art relied
on in the rejection, and shall explain how
such limitations render the claimed
subject matter unobvious over the prior
art. If the rejection is based upon a
combination of references, the argument
shall explain why the references, taken as
a whole, do not suggest the claimed subject
matter, and shall include, as may be
appropriate, an explanation of why features
disclosed in one reference may not properly
be combined with features disclosed in
another reference. A general argument that
all the limitations are not described in a
single reference does not satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not under any burden to
raise and/or consider issues not argued by Appellants.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007