Ex Parte Watson et al - Page 2


                  Appeal 2006-2196                                                                                         
                  Application 10/294,892                                                                                   

                  35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yasui ’503, and claims 1-19 and 22-61 under                                         
                  35 U.S.C. § 103 over Karpik.  The Appellants request reconsideration of the                              
                  Decision with respect to the rejection of claims 8-19 and 38-61 under                                    
                  35 U.S.C. § 103 over Karpik.                                                                             
                         The Appellants argue with respect to independent claim 8 and                                      
                  claims 9-19 and 38-46 that depend directly or indirectly therefrom that                                  
                  claim 8 requires that “the ankles of the standard rider are disposed behind its                          
                  knees”, whereas the ankles of the rider in Karpik’s figure 3 relied upon by                              
                  the Board (Decision 6-7) are in front of the rider’s knees (Request 2-3).  The                           
                  Appellants argue with respect to claim 47 and claims 48-61 that depend                                   
                  directly or indirectly therefrom that claim 47 requires that “the hips of the                            
                  standard rider are disposed behind its ankles by a horizontal distance of                                
                  between 5 and 40 cm”, whereas the hips of the rider in Karpik’s figure 3                                 
                  relied upon by the Board (Decision 6-7) are behind the rider’s ankles by a                               
                  distance greater than 5 to 40 cm (Request 4-5).                                                          
                         The Appellants do not point out, and we do not find, where those                                  
                  arguments are set forth against claims 8-19 and 38-61 in the discussion of                               
                  the rejection over Karpik in the Appellants’ Brief (31-33) or Reply Brief                                
                  (10-11), both of which argued claims 1-19 and 22-61 together.  As stated in                              
                  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), “[a]ny arguments or authorities not                                  
                  included in the brief or a reply brief filed pursuant to §41.41 will be refused                          
                  consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.”  The Appellants                                 
                  have not shown such good cause.  Consequently, we do not consider the                                    
                  Appellants’ arguments.                                                                                   


                                                            2                                                              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007