Appeal No. 2003-0188
Application No. 09/781,386
rejection appearing in that decision is incorrect. Thus, we affirmed the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21, 26, 27 and 34 to 36 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in
the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Williams or Struss for the reasons appearing
on pages 7 and 8 of the original decision.
II.
37 CFR § 1.197(b) provides as follows:
Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision, unless the original decision is so
modified by the decision on rehearing as to become, in effect, a new
decision, and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences so states.
The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the decision
and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. See §
1.136(b) for extensions of time for seeking rehearing in a patent
application and § 1.550(c) for extensions of time for seeking rehearing in
a reexamination proceeding.
Appellant asserts that the Board’s June 20th decision is premised on a
misunderstanding of the claimed invention. (Request for Rehearing, p. 3). Specifically,
Appellant asserts that the invention of claims 21, 28, and 29-36 required adding a dust
reducing additive to an existing joint compound or wall repair compound. This is the
same argument that appears on page 18 of Appellant’s Brief. Specifically, Appellant
argued “[t]he present invention provides a method of reducing the quantity of dust
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007