Appeal No. 97-0477
Application 07/396,751
the scientific articles published before the
application filing date and set forth in the
Applicant's Brief on Appeal (filed herein on
June 6, 1994), at pages 12-17, were overlooked by
the Board in reaching its decision. [Request for
Reconsideration, page 2, third paragraph].
Manifestly, the above-quoted argument is incorrect. See our
original opinion, page 9, last paragraph, making it clear that
we reviewed the scientific articles set forth in the Appeal
Brief, pages 12 through 17, in reaching our decision.
In our original opinion, we evaluated and weighed the
specification evidence relating to preparation of a SIP
(Example 12) and the CDR technique outlined in the Appeal
Brief. As stated in our opinion, page 10, "we place more
weight on Example 12" and "the CDR technique should be given
less weight because that technique is entirely outside the
description set forth in the specification." In the request
for rehearing, appellant does not take issue with the manner
in which we evaluated and weighed evidence. Appellant does
not present any rationale explaining why we erred in placing
more weight on Example 12 and less weight on the CDR
technique.
In our original opinion, page 11, we discussed the
publication by Levi et al. describing how workers obtained a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007