Appeal No. 1998-3035
Application No. 08/580,036
reasonableness so as to shift the burden to Appellants to come
forward with evidence to rebut the Examiner’s position.
A review of Appellants’ response on the record, however,
reveals that, rather than presenting arguments and/or evidence
challenging the Examiner’s interpretation of the operation of
the disclosed clock circuitry, such response instead merely
reiterates their own interpretation by referencing various
portions of their specification. No evidence, for example, in
the form of a Rule 132 declaration suggested earlier in the
prosecution by the Examiner as a possible avenue for resolving
the disputed circuit operation interpretation, has been
forthcoming from Appellants. In addition, we note that the
Examiner has amplified his comments regarding the operation of
Appellants’ clock circuitry in the “Response to Arguments”
portion of the Answer (pages 5 and 6). We do not have the
benefit of Appellants’ thoughts on the Examiner’s comments
since, rather than submit a Reply Brief, Appellants have
chosen to let their position on the record stand based purely
on arguments of counsel. The arguments of counsel, however,
cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007