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:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007