Appeal No. 2002-1015
Application 09/129,339
Rehearing on the next business day, Monday, April 28, 2003, the
request is considered timely.
In the Request for Rehearing, appellants assert that we have
misapprehended and overlooked several points in rendering our
decision and that we have introduced a new ground of rejection in
our previous decision. With these assertions we strongly
disagree.
We have considered in detail appellants' positions with
respect to each of the noted points listed in the Request for
Rehearing but are unpersuaded by any of them. What is most
telling of the arguments presented is that appellants argue in
essence the disclosed invention rather than the subject matter of
claim 25 on appeal. Thus, they invite us to read from the
specification limitations not actually present in claim 25 on
appeal, the only claim argued by appellants in the brief and
reply brief. The scope of claim 25 goes well beyond that which
is asserted according to the arguments presented.
Contrary to the general assertions made in the Request for
Rehearing, we did understand the technology even to the point of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007