Appeal No. 97-3669
Application 08/391,745
Carmichael, Administrative Patent Judge
DISSENTING-IN-PART
While I join the majority’s well-reasoned opinion in all
other respects, I must respectfully dissent from that portion
reversing the rejection of Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 27. I would
instead affirm the examiner’s decision in toto.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 24, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Aoyama. The starting point for
deciding an appeal of an anticipation rejection is 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(3)(8)(iii), which states that:
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.
In other words, the decision is to be based solely on the
arguments raised by the appellants in their briefs. It is beyond
the scope of this decision to address arguments which could have
been raised but were not set forth in the briefs.
In the present case, pursuant to 37 CFR
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007