Appeal No. 2006-2034 Page 3
Application No. 10/744,801
Claims 1, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
U.S. Patent No. 6,349,060 ("Ogura").
II. OPINION
"It is essential that the Board be provided with a brief fully stating the position of
the appellant with respect to each ground of rejection presented for review in the appeal
so that no search of the record is required in order to determine that position. Thus, the
brief should not incorporate or reference previous responses." M.P.E.P. § 1205.02
(8th ed., Rev. 3 Aug. 2005). Here, the appellant's principal brief attempts to
"incorporate by reference . . . the disclosures of all previous responses filed in the
present application, namely, responses dated May 20, 2005 and September 27, 2005."
(App. Br. at 5.) Such an attempt to incorporate previous responses is inappropriate and
will be disregarded. Only the positions stated in the appellants' briefs will be
considered.
"Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
focus on the main point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Sehr, No. 2003-2165,
2005 WL 191041, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). The examiner finds, "The equation
I5 = m2•I1 is dependent upon the characteristics of transistor 206 being similar to the
characteristics of transistor 181. I5 would vary if the process characteristic or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013