Appeal No. 2003-1076
Application No. 09/779,873
Appellant next argues that his Reply Brief was either misapprehended or overlooked.
37 CFR § 1.196(a) provides that the Board of Appeals “in it’s decision, may affirm or reverse the
decision of the examiner in whole or in part on the grounds and on the claims specified by the
examiner....the affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes
a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim, except as to any grounds
specifically reversed.” In rendering it’s decisions, the Board considers the entire record.
Like appellant’s Appeal Brief, paper number 15, received October 28, 2002, appellant’s
Reply Brief, paper number 17, received January 15, 2003, focus in large part on appellant’s
contention that the prior art is non-analogous. However, as pointed out in our decision (page 6,
first full paragraph and page 8, second paragraph) “and repeatedly argued by the examiner”
(see e.g., Final Rejection, paper number 9, mailed May 8, 2002, pages 3-4) and Examiner’s
Answer (paper number 16, mailed November 13, 2002, page 5, last paragraph) appellant’s
arguments are simply not directed to the claimed invention or to the prima facie case of
obviousness set forth by the examiner.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007