Appeal No. 1999-0597
Application 08/592,812
only argument in the main brief is that claims 6 and 7 are not
obvious over Faris and Travis based on the dependency of these
claims from claim 1. The examiner indicated that this did not
constitute a separate argument for patentability. Appellants
provided additional arguments with respect to claims 6 and 7
in the reply brief.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 based
on appellants’ failure to make any persuasive arguments in the
original brief. Since an examiner is not permitted to respond
to a reply brief filed by appellants, we are not inclined to
permit appellants to argue claims for the first time in a
reply brief. To allow appellants to argue claims 6 and 7 for
the first time in the reply brief would merely encourage an
appellant to withhold arguments until the reply brief when the
examiner is not permitted to respond. We do not intend to
promote such a practice.
In conclusion, we have sustained each of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007