Appeal No. 97-2220
Application 08/250,607
for other purposes, rests with appellants, which burden is not carried by mere arguments of counsel.
See generally In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897, 225
USPQ 645, 651-52 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ
14, 16 (CCPA 1972); In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974).
Accordingly, because we do not agree with appellants that our original opinion “in effect, totally
changed the rationale of the [examiner’s] rejection [sic, rejections]” (request, page 2), we decline to
designate our affirmance of the examiner’s grounds of rejection as new grounds of rejection under 37
CFR § 1.196(b) (1997).
We now consider the seven “points of error” (request, pages 6-10) presented in support of
appellants’ second contention that in our original opinion, we “made various findings of fact that were
clearly erroneous, and various conclusions of law that were not in accordance with law” (request, page
1). Upon carefully reviewing each of the “points of error,” we cannot agree with appellants that we
made any erroneous findings of fact or conclusions of law.
We fail to find any statement made with respect to appellants’ point “1” (request, page 6)
involving “corrosion” which sets forth any fact that we may have misapprehended or overlooked in
reaching our decision. Indeed, merely stating that we have “improperly combined . . . disparate
disclosures of corrosion” does not address the manner in which we considered this issue in our original
opinion.
We have adequately addressed appellants’ point “2,” which concerns the teachings at col. 2,
lines 7-11, of Hensel (request, pages 6-7), in our consideration of essentially the same argument above
(see supra p. 7).
In their point “3,” appellants reiterate arguments made in their principal brief (pages 6-9) that
Hensel is non-analogous art because the disclosure thereof with respect to “corrosion” is not specific to
“ant-nest corrosion” (request, page 8). We continue to find ourselves in agreement with the examiner
that such arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in our original opinion (decision, pages 7-
9).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007