Appeal No. 97-0477
Application 07/396,751
78, 90, 91 and 93 through 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure. We reversed
other rejections in the case, and we entered a new ground of
rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second and fourth
paragraphs.
The request for rehearing is not a model of clarity, and
does not refer to any claim or claims in the application.
However, as best understood, the request does not argue that
we overlooked or misapprehended any point of law or fact in
affirming the double patenting rejection of claims 49, 54, 61,
68, 93, 98 and 99. Nor does it appear that appellant requests
rehearing of our decision affirming the rejection of claim 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-
enabling disclosure. Nor does appellant take issue with the
new ground of rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second and fourth paragraphs. Rather, it appears that
appellant requests rehearing only to the extent that we
affirmed the rejection of claims 49 through 54, 61, 63 through
68, 77, 78, 90, 91 and 93 through 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as based on a non-enabling disclosure.
According to appellant,
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007