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: September 9, 2013