Appeal No. 2003-1274
Application No. 09/802,712 Page 3
flocculating agents” (column 1, lines 59 and 60) and a preferred
group of anionic acrylamides.1 Thus, we find no significant
substantive error in our statements at page 4 of the decision.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s allegation that the
Board overlooked a lack of nexus between Davis and Chung for the
reasons stated at pages 5 through 7 of our decision. We observe
that the request is accompanied by a copy of Chapter 16 of the
Handbook of Water-Soluble Gums and Resins, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Davidson (Editor) (1980) and new arguments based
thereon. We will not consider any new arguments and/or new
evidence which were not raised in the Brief. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a) (1997)(“Any 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.”).
Appellant has not argued that there was good cause for presenting
this evidence subsequent to the Board’s decision.
1 The “[a]s noted by appellant” phrase at page 4 of the
decision is technically incorrect since appellant referred to the
paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 of Davis at page 4 of the
brief whereas the term “prefer” appears in the first line of the
paragraph that follows that bridging paragraph; i.e., at column
2, line 3 of Davis. A different outcome is not waranted by that
harmless oversight.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007