Appeal No. 2006-2526
Application No. 10/377,942
examiner=s drawings and related findings in this opinion, we refer the reader to the
Answer.
Appellants in response (Reply Brief at 5) contend that the illustrative drawings
should be considered a new ground of rejection. Whether the Answer contains, in
effect, a new ground of rejection is not a matter within our jurisdiction. Moreover, any
allegation that an examiner=s answer contains a new ground of rejection not identified
as such is waived if not timely raised by filing a petition under 37 CFR ' 1.181(a) within
two months of the answer. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) ' 1207.03,
heading IV (8th Ed., Rev. 3, Aug. 2005).
Appellants also submit in the Reply Brief (at 6) that dictionary definitions must
give way to the meaning imparted by the specification. We acknowledge the principle.
Appellants= citation to the relevant case law appears to be in response to the examiner=s
noting that a general dictionary defines Acoplanar@ as lying or occurring in the same
plane. Appellants do not, however, explain where, why, or how the specification might
impart a definition for Acoplanar@ that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning. Nor do appellants show that the other ordinary terms in the claims are given
special meanings by the instant disclosure. Nor do appellants show that any of the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007