Interference No. 103,379
Decision on Reconsideration
Hester at 1481, 46 USPQ2d at 1648, is erroneous because
"Seifert made three very strident arguments in its Amendment
dated February 4, 1991 which distinguish [the claims from] the
prior art based upon the required presence of the Extension
Wire Structure" (Request at 6). We do not agree that the
arguments made in that amendment, which were discussed at
pages 49-50 of the Decision (wherein it was identified as the
amendment received February 19,
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007