Appeal No. 97-0292 Application 07/814,779 being unpatent-able over Cline in view of Hampl and (2) Claims 9-11 as being unpatentable over Cline in view of Hampl and Montoya. We have carefully reconsidered our decision in light of the arguments advanced; however, we decline to alter our decision in any respect. The appellants note that on page 6 of our decision we quoted column 2, lines 39-43, of Cline wherein it is stated that: The magnesium oxide may be used as the sole filler for the paper or it may be used in combination with the other conventional fillers such as calcium carbonate provided at least 15% by weight of the wrapper is magnesium oxide. [Emphasis added.] The appellants on page 3 of the request thereafter state that (1) “[t]his one statement in Cline, taken independently from the remainder of the reference, may appear to the Board to teach what the Board alleges” and (2) “if the Board actually had considered the reference as a whole, they would have noted in the paragraph directly after this statement . . . that Cline contradicts the Board’s interpretation.” In support of this position the appellants reference column 2, line 65, through column 3, line 20, of Cline wherein it is stated: 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007