“shallowest” as those terms are recited in Beamer claim 1.
As stated above, a request for reconsideration will not be
granted where the moving party merely disagrees with the panel.
Further, Bouzida’s argument regarding interpretation of “est” and
the “superlative” form of a word were not presented in connection
with its preliminary motion 1. Thus, this a new argument.
Bouzida further argues that it was error for the panel to
conclude from the use in Beamer claim 1 of “shallower, initial
louvers” and “steeper louvers in successive walls” that Beamer
used the term “shallowest” and “steepest” to refer to sets having
three or more angles and used shallower and steeper to refer to a
set having only two increasing angles. Bouzida disagrees with
our analysis regarding the different use of the comparative and
superlative form of the word “shallow” within claim 1. However,
mere disagreement is not sufficient to grant a request for
reconsideration of our earlier decision. We see no error in our
analysis. Bouzida has failed to direct us to points that we
misapprehended or overlooked in connection with Bouzida’s
arguments made in its preliminary motion 1.
Bouzida argues that the panel erred in narrowly interpreting
Beamer claim 1, such as to exclude one of Beamer’s disclosed
embodiments showing louvers with only two angles (Paper 55 at 5-
8). Bouzida cites to Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1676, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997) for the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007