Appeal No. 2004-0356
Application 09/811,993
present claims” (brief, page 51), we do not share appellant’s
view that the claims now before us on appeal are in any way “very
similar in limitations” to the claims addressed in prior Appeal
No. 1998-0234 in parent Application No. 08/406,752 (now U.S.
Patent No. 6,438,882). The claims before us in the present
appeal are clearly much broader in scope than the claims of the
parent application. In addition, we note that the examiner’s
current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on the collective
teachings of Boggess and Sernovitz was not an issue in the
earlier appeal. Thus, the doctrine of Issue Preclusion (whether
viewed as res judicata, law of the case, or collateral estoppel)
has no bearing on the present appeal.
With respect to the arguments presented on pages 27-50 of
the brief addressing appellant’s rebuttal evidence in the form of
several declarations pertaining to secondary considerations filed
on December 26, 2002 and January 13, 2003, we note that the
examiner has refused entry of such evidence as being untimely
filed (Paper No. 16, mailed January 29, 2003), and further
observe that the decision of the examiner refusing entry and
consideration of such evidence was upheld on petition (see
Decision on Petition, Paper No. 22, mailed June 2, 2003).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007