Appeal No. 1999-0929
Application No. 08/514,986
considered by the Board. See Ex parte Hindersinn, 177 USPQ
78, 80 (Bd. App. 1971) and Ex parte Harvey, 163 USPQ 572, 573
(Bd. App. 1968) (Question not presented to Board in appeal and
not discussed by examiner is not appropriate for decision by
Board on petition for reconsideration). Note also In re
Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
and Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1331, 47 USPQ2d 1896,
1904 (Fed. Cir. 1998) wherein the Court noted that a party
cannot wait until after the Board has rendered an adverse
decision and then present new arguments in a request for
reconsideration. However, since the showing of the detecting
device in Figure 15a of Matsui may not be entirely accurate,
we take this opportunity to clarify our comments in our
decision mailed March 23, 2000. Given that the insulating
spacers (96, 96’) are not shown in Figure 15a of Matsui, we
assumed that their function of spacing and insulating the
electrically conductive strips (95, 95’) from one another was
necessarily performed by the insulating material (97) which is
shown in Figure 15a. Column 18, lines 55-58, of Matsui merely
indicate that the detecting device in the embodiment of
Figures 15a and 15b is "constructed in a manner essentially
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007