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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte STANLEY PODLASECK, GENE P. SHUMAKER,
PAUL D. RIMER and ROGER A. PURCELL
______________
Appeal No. 1996-3533
Application 08/203,624
_______________
HEARD: February 9, 2000
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
On Request For Rehearing
Appellants request rehearing under 37 CFR § 1.197(b) (1997) of our decision dated February
29, 2000 (Paper No. 27) affirming the examiner’s rejection of appealed claims 1 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble in view of Morgan. Appellants contend (1) that our
opinion includes new grounds of rejection of (a) claims 5 and 6, because the examiner “did not rely on
‘admitted prior art’ to reject” these claims, and (b) of claim 18, because the examiner “did not rely on
‘overlapping subject matter’ to reject” this claim, that were not designated as such under 37 CFR §
1.196(b) (1997); and (2) that we must reverse the ground of rejection of record because we gave “the
claimed phrase ‘in a resin’ . . . an unreasonable interpretation” in our opinion (request, page 1).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007