Appeal No. 2001-1845
Application 09/093,454
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pracht. As was
indicated in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of that
decision, since our reasoning was considerably different from
that set forth by the examiner, we denominated our affirmance as
a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
We have carefully considered each of the points of argument
raised by appellants in their request for rehearing, however,
those arguments do not persuade us that our decision was in error
in any respect.
Appellants urge in the request (page 1) that this panel of
the Board has misapprehended the teachings of the cited Pracht
patent in affirming the above-noted rejections. We do not agree.
More particularly, appellants contend that our findings and
conclusions based on Figure 4 of Pracht and discussions following
therefrom rely on extrapolation and misapprehension as to the
teachings of Pracht, because Figure 4 of the patent shows a
single prefabricated panel connected to a single story of a
building structure and does not provide any disclosure regarding
any relationship with other stories of the multi-story building
structure. We have evaluated appellants’ points of argument, but
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007