Appeal No. 1996-3724
Application No. 08/120,305
Senga. For example, even if the word “batch” as used by
Vidaurri is interpreted in the manner urged on page 2 of the
subject request, this interpretation would not militate
against the rejection under consideration as plainly revealed
in our discussion on page 6 of our decision. Similarly, the
discussion on pages 6 and 7 of our decision plainly
controverts the appellants’ argument in this request that the
secondary references would not have suggested modifying
Vidaurri in such a manner as to yield the appealed claim 1
process.
In light of the foregoing, the appellants’ request is
granted only to the extent that our decision has been
reheard/reconsidered but is denied with respect to making any
changes therein.
DENIED
Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
John D. Smith ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007