Appeal No. 1998-1589
Application No. 08/388,631
(See Request for Rehearing at page 6.) We respectfully disagree. Appellant relies upon
appellant’s untimely declaration at paragraphs 50-52. This argument is not timely
presented and has not been considered.
Appellant further argues that the argument with respect to the distinction between claims
21 and 28 is withdrawn. This attempt to withdraw the argument is also not persuasive
since it is not timely presented, and furthermore, it is contrary to the specification at page
1, lines 11-14. Appellant’s arguments are directed to “true” RNG, but no such language is
present in either claim 21 or 28. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues the declaration of the inventor, alleged copying of appellant’s invention
and comparison of ORION’s system. (See Request for Rehearing at
page 5.) This evidence has not been considered by the examiner and has not been timely
filed for review by the examiner and ultimately by this Board. Further, this argument does
not identify any error in our decision. Therefore, argument thereto
is not persuasive.
Appellant concludes the arguments stating that it would be a “miscarriage of
justice if this inventor, who created two wholly new businesses, would end up
with nothing to show for his endeavors because of a Board Decision that is
based in obfuscation.” Our decision is based on the broad language of the
claims and the administrative record. We find no error in the decision,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007