Appeal No. 1997-2246
Application 08/353,572
actual reduction to practice. In that regard, arguments not
made by the appellants have not been considered. The board
does not take up the role of counsel or advocate to see what
else, if anything, can be argued or pointed out by the
appellants. Insofar as the appellants, in response to the
examiner’s position, have not pointed out what specific facts
in their declaration support the assertion of diligence from a
time prior to September 12, 1988, to March 16, 1989, we
decline and are not obliged to make an independent hunt for
such testimony and to characterize them in the first instance.
Finally, the appellants argue in their reply brief that
the examiner had already accorded the appellants a priority
date of November 27, 1985, which is long prior to the filing
date of the Schwendeman reference. In support of that
contention, the appellants state:
In an advisory action dated 09/04/96 (paper number
12), the examiner states:
“Applicant’s response has overcome the
following objection: the response, if
entered for appeal, will overcome the
objection to the specification and
declaration re continuity”.
The appellants’ submission immediately prior to the
advisory action dated September 4, 1996, is Paper No. 11,
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007