The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte REMY RUPPEL, PIERRE LAURENT and JOEL HUNGLER
____________
Appeal No. 1996-3589
Application No. 08/098,325
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, PAK and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request that we reconsider our decision mailed
on February 3, 2000 wherein we affirmed the rejection of
claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Schulz, Donnelly,
Thomas or Wells, each taken alone or in view of Nystrand.
Appellants argue that 1) not all of the claimed features
are taught in the prior art and, therefore, optimization
cannot provide for obviousness of each of the claimed
features, 2) Schulz teaches only a tip-to-tip assembly having
a single pattern of deep and shallow bosses, and does not
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007