Ex parte LINK et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1996-4079                                                        
          Application No. 08/239,916                                                  


          English language translation of the certified copy prior to                 
          filing their appeal, the examiner was never provided the                    
          opportunity prior to our decision to determine if any of                    
          appellants’ claims are, in fact, entitled to any benefit under              
          35 U.S.C.  119(a)-(d) and 37 CFR  1.55(a).  Obviously,                    
          appellants’ delay in filing the English translation required                
          by 37 CFR                                                                   
           1.55(a) was not caused by anything contained in our                       
          decision.                                                                   
               Appellants’ attempt to belatedly present new arguments                 
          directed to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 13,                
          is unavailing, since a new argument advanced in a request for               







          rehearing, but not advanced in appellants’ brief, is not                    
          properly before the Board and will not be considered.  See Ex               
          parte Hindersinn, 177 USPQ 78, 80 (Bd. App. 1971) and Ex parte              
          Harvey,                                                                     
          163 USPQ 572, 573 (Bd. App. 1968) (Question not presented to                
                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007