Appeal No. 2004-1137
Application No. 09/734506
claim 1 on appeal not presented in the appeal brief (Paper No.
27). In addition to further comments concerning the "first
cooling volume" argued previously, appellant now raises the
argument that the examiner has not properly identified any
structure in Longsworth that meets the requirements of the
claimed "second cooling volume" of claim 1 on appeal (reply
brief, pages 2-4). As expressly stated in 37 CFR § 1.192(a),
"[a]ny arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be
refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown." No good cause having
been shown, we refuse to consider appellant's arguments directed
to the "second cooling volume." However, we note our agreement
with the examiner's view, as set forth on page 4 of the answer,
that the space above the surface (53) of the liquid cryogen in
the Dewar (50) of Longsworth's sampler, which space contains
gaseous cryogen, the refrigerator (70), and the conduit (32), and
which is said to be maintained at a temperature of between 70º
and 73º Kelvin (col. 4, lines 36-38), constitutes a "second
cooling volume" which is inherently "operable to cool" the
withdrawn fluid (air) passing through stainless steel conduit
(32) on its way to the storage bottle (10), at least to some
1111
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007