Appeal No. 2000-0930
Application No. 08/888,339
page 6.) We disagree with appellant. Rather, we found that Vogeley teaches two
dimensional imaging within the optics and the two dimensional image is compressed
into a one dimensional image by the optics. (Decision at page 3.)
We are not persuaded that we erred in our interpretation of the language of
independent claims 1 and 12. Appellant has the burden of identifying a clear error
(points misapprehended or overlooked) in the decision. (See 37 CFR § 1.197(b).) We
find that appellant has not identified any points misapprehended or overlooked in the
decision. Therefore, we decline to modify our decision beyond clarification of the
correct status of dependent claims 25 and 27.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the appellant's request for rehearing is granted to the
extent of reconsidering our decision, but is denied with respect to making any change
thereto.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007