Appeal No. 2004-0522
Application No. 09/678,045
In this request for rehearing, and based upon our decision,
appellants now seek reconsideration of 27 on its merits. As
indicated above, appellants decided in their brief to not
specifically argue claim 27 relative to the applied prior art.
Thus, a merits review of claim 27 on request for rehearing is
inappropriate.2
Claim 10
In this request for rehearing (page 7), appellants assess
claim 10 as including “the same limitations” which apparently
formed the basis for reversal of the rejection of method claim
18. As was readily apparent to us from our original reading of
those claims, apparatus claim 10 and method claim 18 clearly
reveal different language, and not “the same limitations” as
asserted by appellants. Thus, as specifically addressed in our
decision (pages 8 and 9), claim 10, with its different “in
communication with” language, is appropriately rejected on prior
2
2 Should claim 27 come before the examiner in a subsequent
application, appellants’ merits argument can certainly be
presented.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007