Appeal No. 1998-3315
Application 08/739,065
The examiner’s rationale for rejecting claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was that the term “sides of
the socket forming opening” lacked proper antecedent basis.
In treating the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, we stated on pages 7 and 8 of our
decision that neither appellant’s brief nor appellant’s reply
brief addressed this rejection, that appellant has in effect
acquiesced in the rejection, and that, accordingly, this
rejection was being summarily affirmed.
Appellant now, for the first time, directly challenges
the examiner’s rationale. Specifically, appellant now asserts
that
the term “sides” is being used for the first time
[in the claim] and is not being stated as “said
sides” but simply as “sides” of the socket-forming
opening in the base. Applicant believes that this
is acceptable language and that the Examiner’s
Section 112, second paragraph, rejection is in err
[sic, error] [request, page 1].
The attempt to raise this issue in the request for
rehearing is improper and will not be considered. 37 CFR
1.197(b) requires a request for rehearing to state with
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007