Appeal No. 2000-1515 Page 9
Application No. 08/687,195
time in a reply brief, then, is not only unfair . . . but also
entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion. . . ."
McBride v Merrell Dow and Pharms., Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1210-11
(D.C. Cir. 1986).
Here, because an examiner is no longer permitted to file sua
sponte a supplemental examiner’s answer in response to a reply
brief, 37 C.F.R. § 1.193(b)(1)(1998), we do not have the benefit
of the examiner’s response to the appellants’ new argument.
Considering the new argument would not only be unfair but would
entail the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion.
Accordingly, we will not consider the new argument. Cf. Kaufman
Co. v Lantech Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 973 n.*, 1 USPQ2d 1202, 1204
n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, claims 4, 6-8, 15, and 16 stand
or fall with representative claim 1; claims 10, 12-14, and 16-18
stand or fall with representative claim 9; and claims 22, 23, and
26-29 stand or fall with representative claim 21.
For its part, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: “displaying the original sentence and the
translated sentence so that the divided original sentence and the
divided translated sentence are arranged at vertically juxtaposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007