Appeal No. 97-4166
Application No. 08/478,647
315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979) and In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
The appellant argues that surface 30 of Parish cannot be
considered to be "substantially vertical" as set forth in
independent claims 96 and 97. We must point out, however,
that no such argument was advanced in the brief or reply
brief, and the presentation of arguments for the first time in
a request for rehearing (formerly reconsideration) is
improper. See In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640,
642-43 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Ex parte Hindersinn, 177 USPQ 78,
80 (Bd. App. 1971). See also 37 CFR § 1.192(a):
Any arguments or authorities not included in the
brief will be refused consideration by the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences unless good cause
is shown.
Accordingly, this argument will not be considered. Moreover,
even if such an argument had been made, we are of the opinion
that the lower portion of Parish's member 30 can be considered
to be "substantially vertical" as broadly claimed. This is 2
2The terminology in a pending application's claims is to
be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir.
1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007