Appeal No. 1997-4315
Application No. 08/159,618
arguments related to claim interpretation were not timely made
at oral hearing and, therefore, are not timely made as part
of this request for rehearing.
We note appellants’ request that we remand this
application to the examiner for a consideration of the claim
interpretation question. For reasons discussed above, we
decline to remand this application to consider an issue which
was not timely raised. Appellants are free to argue this
issue, however, in continued prosecution of this invention
before the examiner. In summary, we have carefully
considered the arguments raised by appellants in their request
for rehearing, but we can find no errors in the original Board
decision. We are of the view that the invention set forth in
claims 1-6, 19 and 21 would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
We have granted appellants’ request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the decision of June 23, 2000, but we
deny the request with respect to making any changes therein.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REHEARING DENIED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007