Appeal No. 2002-2050
Application No. 08/973,019
supra. A response to a request for rehearing always requires a
response to the arguments and, therefore, would always
necessitate a new ground of rejection if appellant's argument
were followed.
Appellant argues (Request, pages 4-6) that we improperly
considered the evidence presented by various declarations.
Specifically, appellant accuses us of substituting "an
interpretation of the teaching of column 2, lines 20-26 of Elton
'565, as to a suggestion of semiconductive tape that 'possibly
could be in close contact' (emphasis added), for the well
reasoned position based upon technically sound principles
expressed in the above-noted Aabo Declaration." We, however, did
no such thing. We explained why our interpretation of Elton '565
differed from Mr. Aabo's, and our use of "possibly could be in
contact" was a response to Mr. Aabo's statements that
semiconductive tape could not be in close contact.
Appellant states (Request, page 4) that "[t]he Board also
advances no authority as to why it may legally ignore the
requirements for the consideration of evidence presented by those
of ordinary skill in the art." We did consider Mr. Aabo's
opinions, but simply disagreed with them. Although opinion
testimony rendered by experts must be given consideration and is
generally entitled to some weight, it is not controlling.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007