Appeal No. 2002-1430
Application 08/935,365
the appellants (see pages 3 and 8 in the appellants’
specification) would have suggested a multi-block
section or length meeting the limitations in claims 6,
7 and 18, thereby warranting an appropriate § 103(a)
rejection of these claims [page 13].
On rehearing, the appellants raise two matters for
reconsideration. First, the appellants believe that the
reference to claim 18 instead of claim 28 was a typographical
error and seek correction thereof. Second, the appellants
“request that section IV of the Decision on Appeal be stricken in
its entirety” (request, page 3) as being unwarranted and
inconsistent with principles of res judicata because it instructs
the examiner to entertain “the precise issue considered by this
Board in section III of the Decision on Appeal” (request, page
2).
The appellants’ first point is well taken, but their second
is not.
Read in context, the reference in section IV of the decision
to claims 6, 7 and 18 clearly should have been to claims 6, 7 and
28. As surmised by the appellants, this mistake stemmed from a
typographical error.
As for its substantive content, section IV of the decision
merely proposed that the examiner consider whether the combined
teachings of Roberts, Berkebile and Brown ‘388 would have
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007