Appeal No. 1997-3102
Application 08/476,526
entered May 18, 2000, wherein we affirmed the rejection of
claims 35 and 36 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the Caravona patent in view of the Bivar publication. More
specifically, we noted in our decision, (page 11) that
appellant made no argument and no challenge in his brief to
the examiner’s reasonable finding that the same patentable
invention, as defined in 37 CFR § 1.601(n), is claimed by the
Caravona patent. Thus, we held that 37 CFR § 1.131 was
not available as a vehicle for appellant to overcome the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the appealed
claims as unpatentable over Caravona in view of the Bivar
publication.
In appellant’s request at page 2, appellant argues that
the claims of the Caravona patent are for a “different
invention”, and that appellant’s declaration filed under 37
CFR § 1.131 was proper. In support of this conclusion, and
for the first time in this record, appellant presents reasons
at page 2 of his request why the claims of Caravona are
allegedly for a separate patentable invention. Since these
arguments were not originally presented in appellant’s main
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007