Appeal No. 96-1675
Application No. 08/317,977
because of the scope of appellants' claims, the showing in the
specification as filed is inadequate to overcome the prior art
rejection because it is not representative of the scope of
appellant's claims or the prior art. No claim on appeal is
limited to the combination of the specific ingredients or
steps described in Example 5 from the specification.
Moreover, the example which is said to represent the prior art
is not adequately set forth.
We have not overlooked the material submitted with
appellant's brief and discussed at pages 16 through 20 of the
main brief and pages 7 and 8 of the reply brief. However, 37
C.F.R. § 1.195 does not permit the submission of additional
evidence after an appeal has been taken unless accompanied by
a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the material was
not earlier presented. No such showing of "good and
sufficient reasons" is of record. Accordingly, we have not
considered the James textbook for any reason in this appeal.
We have reconsidered the prima facie case anew in light
of all the evidence. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, for the reasons
expressed above, we find the evidence from the specification
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007