Appeal No. 2003-0509 Page 14
Application No. 08/657,510
Having been unpersuaded by those arguments, we affirm the rejection of claims 18 and
19.
Besides presenting the aforementioned arguments, the appellants "request that
the Board of Appeals to [sic] find that the treatement [sic] of the Appeal and the Appeal
Brief of December 11, 2000, was improper and erroneous, and requests that the
examining branch be directed to properly handle these items in accordance with the
MPEP." (Appeal Br. at 12.) They also argue that "the failure by the PTO to withdraw
the finality of the Office Action mailed on March 30,1998, was arbitrary and capricious,
and respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals directs the examining branch to
follow the requirements of the MPEP." (Id. at 13.) Rather than by appeal to the Board,
however, such an issue is to be settled by petition to the Director of the USPTO. See
Hengehold, 440 F.2d at 1403, 169 USPQ at 479.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-14 under § 103(a) are
reversed. The rejections of claims 15-19, however, are affirmed. "Any arguments or
authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a). Accordingly, our affirmance is
based only on the arguments made in the brief. Arguments or authorities omitted
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007