Appeal No. 1998-2516
Application 08/422,440
raised in the brief and considered in our original decision
are not convincing of error in the examiner’s rejection.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by
appellant in the request for rehearing, but we can find no
errors in our original decision. We are still of the view
that the invention set forth in claim 1 would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the
collective teachings of Jove and Smith.
We have granted appellant’s request to the extent that
we have reconsidered our decision of October 27, 2000, but we
deny the request with respect to making any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
REHEARING DENIED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007