Appeal No. 1999-2687
Application 08/174,353
In the previous decision, we noted that the examiner had
persuasively responded to each of appellants’ arguments with
respect to the rejection of claim 1 [previous decision, page 5].
We also stated the following:
Since we agree with each of the examiner’s
assertions with respect to the disclosure of
Wilson as set forth in the response to
arguments section of the answer, and since
appellants have not persuasively challenged
these assertions, we agree with the examiner
that claims 1 and 3 are fully met by the
disclosure of Wilson [previous decision, page
7].
Thus, based on the record before us, we agreed with the
examiner’s analysis of claim 1 based on the Donaldson issue.
The request for rehearing essentially seeks to change our
previous decision by asking us to look at a new record by making
several new arguments with respect to the Donaldson question. As
noted above, these are arguments that appellants could have made
and should have made while prosecution was before the examiner.
It is not appropriate for us to consider arguments made for the
first time in a request for rehearing. We have carefully
reviewed the record in this appeal, and we find that the
questions regarding Donaldson were properly addressed by the
examiner and by the Board. Therefore, we are not persuaded by
this particular argument that the previous decision was in error.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007