Appeal No. 1998-3315
Application 08/739,065
particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended
or overlooked in rendering the decision. Since appellant
heretofore did not dispute the examiner’s conclusion that the
terminology “sides of the socket
forming opening” appearing in claim 1 made the claim
indefinite within the meaning of the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, this point could not have been overlooked or
misapprehended in rendering the decision. Moreover and in any
event, we do not necessarily agree with appellant’s newly
presented argument as to why the claim language in question
satisfies the requirements of the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
Appellant asks in the alternative that we enter the
amendment attached to the request and reconsider the affirmed
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 1 in
light of said amendment.
We have no authority to reopen prosecution or to enter
claim amendments. Moreover, it is not the policy of the Board
to consider the effect of amendments filed after a decision
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007