Appeal No. 1996-0716
Application 08/107,661
claims under both 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112, first paragraph,
we denominated our affirmance as a "new ground of rejection"
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) because the examiner had
specifically
withdrawn his rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and because we
relied on the "enablement" clause of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph in affirming the examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112.
In our decision at page 12, appellants were advised of
their options on how to proceed under the rule and appellants
have chosen the second option under the rule. That is,
appellants have requested rehearing of our decision based upon
the same record. The relevant section of 37 C.F.R. § 1.197(b)
provides that the request for rehearing:
must state with particularity the points believed to
have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering
the decision and also state all other grounds upon
which rehearing is sought.
We have carefully considered the entirety of appellants'
request but, rather than being directed to facts or points of
law which we "misapprehended or overlooked" in our decision,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007