Appeal No. 2001-0937 Page ~ PAGE ~1~
Application No. 09/077,119
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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JOCHEN KALBE, ANDREAS TURBERG,
MICHAEL LONDERSHAUSEN, NORBERT MENCKE,
REINER POSPISCHIL, and RAINER SONNECK
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0937
Application No. 09/077,119
__________
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
__________
Before WINTERS, LORIN, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper No. 20) in response
to our Decision on Appeal (Paper No. 19). We GRANT the Request.
In our previous Decision on Appeal, we (a) reversed Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3-8 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Itoh alone, and (b), under
the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), made a new grounds of rejection whereby
claims 3-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Itoh in
view of the Himel article (Himel, Chester M., “The Optimum Size for Insecticide
Page: 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007