Appeal No. 2005-0258 Page 7
Application No. 09/768,877
added), “claims 19 and 53 have additional amino acid sequence recitations upon
which additional arguments for the patentability of the claims may be made,”
appellants failed to make additional arguments in the argument section of this
ground of rejection. In addition, to the extend that appellants would assert that
they satisfied their requirement to separately argue the patentability of claims 19
and 53 by pointing out on page 7 of their Brief that “claims 19 and 53 have
additional amino acid sequence recitations,” we note that according to 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7)(2002) “[m]erely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is
not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable.” Accordingly,
upon review of the record we find no argument for the separate patentability of
claims 19 and 53 as they relate to the third ground of rejection on this record.
On reflection, we have carefully reviewed the original opinion in light of
appellants’ request, but we find no point of law or fact that we overlooked or
misapprehended in arriving at our decision. To the extent relevant, appellants’
request amounts to a reargument of points already considered by the board.
Therefore, appellants’ request has been granted to the extent that the decision
has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect to making any
modifications to the decision affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 18-21,
49-51, 53-64, 115 and 116 under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007