Ex parte TAGG - Page 3




          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