but is simply that appellants do not agree with the conclusions and
ultimate decision reached by the board. Manifestly, it constitutes
insufficient basis for us to change our decision.
Lastly, pages 5 and 6 of the request appellants address the
examiner~s position in the answer that detecting a bad frame earlier
would have been obvious because it would permit better reduction of
congestion. The position is taken and argument is made that the
motivation given by the examiner does not make sense. This argument by
appellants is entitled to no consideration. The argument should have
been made in appellants~ reply brief such that the examiner would have
had the opportunity to rebut the position in a supplemental answer. We
will not address a new argument which the examiner has had no
opportunity to answer. Ex parte Hindersinn, 177 USPQ 78, 80 (Bd. App.
1971).
For the reasons given above, the request is granted only to the
extent that our decision has been reconsidered but is denied with
respect to making any changes in that decision.
DENIED
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007