Ex parte Snoeyen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 6, 1998

08067198 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 6, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 25, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ANTHONIUS J.H. SNOEYEN
____________
Appeal No. 95-3691
Application No. 08/067,1981
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before SOFOCLEOUS, MCQUADE and PAK, Administrative Patent
Judges.
SOFOCLEOUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant has filed a request for reconsideration of our
decision, mailed June 8, 1998.
Appeal No. 95-3691
Application No. 08/067,198
2
A request for reconsideration shall state with
particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended
or overlooked in rendering the decision. 37 CFR § 1.197(b).
The request states that the decision appears to have
overlooked the fact that McNeely does not anticipate the
claimed invention. In support of this assertion, the request
argues that four limitations, one in independent claim 1 and
the three in the dependent claims, are not shown by McNeely.
The arguments now raised in the request were not presented in
appellant’s brief, but rather are now raised for the first
time on reconsideration. For that reason, we could not have
overlooked the complained of matters, since they were not
raised. Moreover, it is well settled that the failure to
present an argument, prior to a request for reconsideration,
constitutes a waiver of the argument. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d
705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642-643 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the request is granted to the extent that we
have reviewed our decision and is denied insofar as it seeks
any modification thereof.
Appeal No. 95-3691
Application No. 08/067,198
3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
RECONSIDERATION DENIED
MICHAEL SOFOCLEOUS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3691
Application No. 08/067,198
4
MS/sld
Corporate Patent Counsel
U.S. Philips Corporation
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591