Appeal No. 2005-2057 Page 8
Application No. 09/906,362
Here, contrary to the premise of the appellant's aforementioned argument,
claim 1 does not specify that "the integration periods are controlled by the detector."
(Appeal Br. at 7.) Because it is based on limitations that are not claimed, we are
unpersuaded by the argument. Therefore, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1
and of claims 2-28, which fall therewith.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-28 under § 102(e) is affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a). Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us nor at
issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367, 69 USPQ2d
1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a decision
not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not presented to the Board.")
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007