Appeal No. 2000-0451
Application No. 08/726,088
1, 3 and 6 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Noiles (U.S. Patent No. 4,978,356).
We have carefully reviewed the points of argument raised
by appellant in the request, however, we note that instead of
directing the request for rehearing to points which were
misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the decision on
appeal as is mandated by 37 CFR § 1.197(b), appellant has
essentially made new grounds of argument (regarding dependent
claim 8) which were not previously presented in the brief on
appeal.
While appellant recognizes that no separate argument was
presented in the brief (Paper No. 11) or in the reply brief
(Paper No. 13) concerning the examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Noiles, appellant now urges that claim 8
deserves substantive consideration and characterizes this
Board's determination that dependent claims 7 and 8
(particularly claim 8) should fall with independent parent
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007