Appeal No. 97-1983
Application No. 29/038,982
affirmed the examiner's rejection of the appealed design claim
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by the
appellants in their request for rehearing, however, those
arguments do not persuade us that our decision was in error in
any respect.
In the request, the appellants list five points believed to
have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering our
decision. We will address each of these points in the order
they are presented in the request.
First, the appellants argue that we overlooked or
misapprehended that the claim under appeal points out the bounds
between infringing and noninfringing conduct with greater
particularity by including "substantially" in the claim because
the settled rule is that a design patent is infringed if the
accused design is substantially the same as the design shown in
the drawings.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007