Ex Parte Watson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 18, 2007

10294892 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte PETER WATSON, BRUNO GIROUARD and
BERTHOLD FECTEALU
_____________

Appeal 2006-2196
Application 10/294,892
Technology Center
____________

Decided: July 18, 2007
_______________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, STUART S. LEVY, and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

In our Decision mailed November 14, 2006 we affirmed the rejections
of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Yasui ‘503, claims 20 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Karpik, claims 1-19 and 21-61 under

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

Appeal 2006-2196
Application 10/294,892

Accordingly, the Appellants’ Request for Rehearing is denied.

DENIED

vsh

OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP (BRP)
2100 - 1000 DE LA GAUCHETIERE ST. WEST
MONTREAL H3B4W-5 CA CANADA
3