Appeal 2007-1968
Application 10/400,856
As a closing matter, we have not considered any of the remarks set
forth in the Reply Brief since they are not essentially responsive to the
Examiner’s responsive arguments set forth in the Answer and are not truly a
reply to the Answer. The substance of the remarks in the Reply Brief
actually appears to be new arguments of the nature that should have been
presented in the principal Brief on appeal. The stated rejection in the
Answer is the same as that set forth in the final rejection. The positions set
forth in the Reply Brief are considered to have been waived because they
were not raised in Appellant’s opening Brief. See Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion
Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989, 80 USPQ2d 1839, 1847-48
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS CO 80527-2400
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013