Appeal No. 2000-1984
Application No. 08/565,775
With regard to the prior art rejection, appellants argue
that Schweizerhof does not anticipate claims 1-3 and 5-10. While
not giving a specific argument to any particular claim
limitations, appellants contend that we failed to follow the
guidelines of Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 43 USPQ2d 1030,
(Fed. Cir. 1997) which mandates specific findings of fact by the
PTO.
Appellants refer to an earlier amendment after final to
argue two limitations set out in claim 2 vis-à-vis the
Schweizerhof patent. Similarly, appellants refer to that
amendment for argued limitations of claims 5-10.
Despite whatever arguments may have been made earlier in the
prosecution of the case, we consider appellants' briefs to be
complete in their arguments against the examiner's position.
Therefore, we have only considered arguments appearing in the
briefs, arguments not repeated therein being treated as waived.
Since, on review, we find that appellants did, in fact,
argue the limitations of claim 2 (principal brief, page 17), of
claim 6 (principal brief, page 18) and, generally, of claims 5
and 7-10 (principal brief, page 19), we will entertain
appellants' arguments in the request for rehearing.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007