Ex parte KURODA et al. - Page 8


                 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