Appeal No. 2001-1955
Application 08/989,917
mention of claim 24 at the top of page 3 of reply brief,
arguments as to this claim in the reply brief will not be
entertained by us since no arguments have been presented in the
principal brief on appeal. Since the examiner is not permitted
to respond to the reply brief under the current rules of
practice, the arguments directed to claim 24 in the reply brief
are inappropriate and will not be considered.
Lastly, we address independent claim 29 on appeal.
Appellants recognize at the top of pages 2 and 5 of the principal
brief on appeal that claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This is clear from the top of page 6 of the final rejection, the
middle of page 5 of the answer and the top of page 9 of the
answer. However, there are no arguments presented in the brief
or reply brief as to claim 29. As such, appellants appear to
concede the unpatentability of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note in passing that this claim appears to read on appellants'
recognized prior art approach as into prior art Figure 3.
In summary, we have sustained the rejection of independent
claims 1, 19, 21, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because
appellants have also presented no arguments as to dependent claim
20, this claim falls with its parent independent claim 19. Of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007