Appeal No. 1998-1915 Page 10
Application No. 08/670,123
hearing, furthermore, the appellants' counsel admitted that
claims 9 and 10, as written, are anticipated by Yamashita. We
are not persuaded that the examiner erred in so rejecting
claims 9 and 10. Therefore, we affirm pro forma the
rejection. Arguments not made in the briefs are not before
us, are not at issue, and are considered waived.
Also at the oral hearing, the counsel proposed amending
claims 9 and 10 to replace the phrase "after the starting
switch moves into the on position" with the phrase --after
activation of the discharge lamp--. We advised the counsel
that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has no
jurisdiction to consider the proposed amendment; such
jurisdiction resides with the Examiner. If the Examiner
enters the amendment, however, we are persuaded that the
claims would distinguish over Yamashita.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Yamashita is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 11-18 under § 102(e) as anticipated by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007