Appeal No. 2001-0775 2
Application No. 08/612,251
that without a peel layer, the imprint of the distribution
channel is left as a textured surface on the article. (Request,
page 2.) As stated on page 4 of our Decision, appellants’ claims
do not distinguish from such a structure as set forth in Seemann.
In the Request, appellants propose an amendment to claim 12 to
emphasize that their method employs at least a portion of the
vacuum bag as a mold to contour the shape of the article and not
just to impose a texture on the article’s surface. However,
after a decision on appeal, amendments can only be made as
provided in Section 1.198 and 1.981, or to carry into effect a
recommendation under Section 1.196 or Section 1.977. See 37 CFR
§ 1.116(d)(2000).
In view of the above, we do not find in the Request any
argument convincing us of error in the conclusions we reached in
our Decision. Accordingly, the appellants’ Request for Rehearing
is denied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007