The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte THOMAS RICK, PETER WAGNER, and SIEGLEIF LENART ____________ Appeal No. 2000-0435 Application No. 08/614,930 ____________ HEARD: December 11, 2001 ____________ Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge. REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants have requested a rehearing of our decision dated December 26, 2001, wherein the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13 through 19, 21 and 22 was affirmed based upon the sole teachings of Dortenzio. Appellants argue (request, pages 3 and 4) that: [T]he apparatus in Dortenzio et al and its method of operation clearly do not satisfy the limitations of Claim 1. That is, Claim 1 recites that “data which define use restrictions applicable to the vehicle are stored in thePage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007