Appeal No. 2001-0330
Application 08/852,654
Appellants point out correctly that our decision on page 11
states “we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 6" but then
states in the conclusion on page 14 of our decision that we
sustain the rejection of claim 6. From reading our opinion, it
is clear that this is a typographical error. The last paragraph
on page 14 is corrected to read as follows:
In conclusion, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-5, 7
and 20-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 6 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This corrects the typographical error and does not change our
decision.
Appellants now present new arguments that we should consider
the means-plus-function limitations in claims 24 through 26, 29
through 30, 32 and 33. However, these new arguments were not
presented in the Appellants’ brief nor have Appellants addressed
why these arguments were not presented earlier in the brief.
37 CFR § 1.192 (a) as amended at 58 Fed. Reg. 53196,
October 10, 1999, which was controlling at the time of
Appellants’ filing of the reconsideration, states as follows:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007