Appeal No. 2005-1593
Application No. 10/054,647
Appellants failed to separately argue claims 10-13 with respect to the §
102 rejection over Rikihisa in the Appeal Brief, and thus waived any argument
that the Board must consider the patentability of these claims separately.
Appellants further direct the Board’s attention to treatment of claims 7-8 in
Appeal No. 2005-1610. We remind appellants that, “[e]ach case must be judged
on its own facts.” Intervet America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc.,
887 F.2d 1050, 1055, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We further note
that claims 7-8 were not rejected in view of the prior art or otherwise by the
examiner in Appeal No. 2005-1610.
In sum, appellants failed to separately argue claims 10-13 with respect to
the § 102 rejection over Rikihisa in the Appeal Brief, and thus waived any
argument that the Board must consider the patentability of these claims
separately.
With respect to the merits of the appeal, appellants request that we read portions
of the description and features from the specification into the claims. Request, page 6.
We decline to do so.
Appellants now argue that the specification indicates that adding additional amino
acids “to the claimed polypeptides … would be detrimental to the sensitivity and
specificity of assays for the detection of Ehrlichia antibodies.” Request, pages 7-8.
However, appellants chose not to use the transitional phrase “consisting of” in the claim
which would have precluded the addition of amino acids to the claimed sequence. “A
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007