Appeal 2006-3060
Application 09/683,735
In the second Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on October 14, 2005,
Appellants furnish conflicting information with respect to the claims on
appeal. In the Status of the Claims section of the second Supplemental
Appeal Brief, Appellants note the final rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and 23-40
but state that they “appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of the claims as
they relate to claims 1, 3-7, 38, 39 and 40” (Second Supplemental Br. 2).
However, in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter section of the
second Supplemental Appeal Brief, Appellants indicate that “[c]laims 1, 8,
23, 31, 38, 39 and 40 are the only independent claims involved in the present
Appeal” (Id. 2). Also, in the Claims Appendix to the second Supplemental
Appeal Brief, Appellants present all of the rejected claims 1, 3-15, and 23-40
while in the Arguments section of the second Supplemental Appeal Brief,
Appellants present arguments addressing the Examiner’s rejections as to
claims 1, 3-7, and 38-40 only.
In light of the above, Appellants’ second Supplemental Appeal Brief
bears some inconsistencies in describing the rejected claims which
Appellants regard as being on appeal here. These inconsistencies are further
exacerbated by Appellants’ comments at page 2 of the Appeal Brief filed on
November 15, 2004 and page 2 of the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on
December 21, 2004, wherein Appellants seemingly indicate that rejected
claims 8-15 and 25-37 are not addressed in the Brief because Appellants
contemplate further amendment of same after a Decision on Appeal is
reached with respect to the remaining claims. However, a pro forma
affirmance of the rejection of an unargued rejected claim or a dismissal of
the appeal as to an unargued rejected claim generally results from the failure
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013