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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 43
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RODNEY C. HEMMINGER and MARK L. MUNDAY
____________
Appeal No. 2001-1866
Application No. 08/478,606
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
A patent examiner rejected claims 3-38. The appellants appealed therefrom
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We affirmed-in-part and entered new grounds of rejection.
Ex parte Hemminger, No. 2001-1866, slip op. at 1 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. Oct. 8, 2002).
The appellants now ask us to reconsider our decision to affirm the rejection of claims 3-
15 and 25-38 under § 103(a) and our decision to reject claims 16-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2. (Req. Reh'g at 2.)
At the outset, we recall that claims that are not argued separately stand or fall
together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007