Appeal 2007-2218
Application 10/035,595
skilled in the art would recognize that the background art functions could be
implemented with logic circuits similar to those used by Lynch to implement
his invention. Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious over the
combination of disclosures in Lynch.
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with respect to
the rejection of claim 1. Since Appellant has not separately argued the
remaining rejected claims, they stand or fall with claim 1.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Our decision relies on different reasoning than that set forth by the
Examiner. Due to our new reasoning, we designate our decision as a new
ground of rejection.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013