Appeal No. 2004-0387
Application No. 09/384,650
Applicants’ reconsideration request is based on
inconsistent statements concerning the status of appealed
claims 44, 50, 51 and 59. According to Appellants, Request
page 2, the decision indicates that the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 50, 51 and 59, page 42, has been reversed.
However, in the conclusion, appearing on page 45 of the
decision, indicates the rejection of the aforementioned
claims have been affirmed. Appellants also request that the
record state that the subject matter of claims 50, 51 and 59
is patentable over the cited references. (Request, p. 3).
According to Appellants, the decision, pages 39 and 46,
indicates that the rejection of claim 44 has been reversed.
(Request p. 3). Appellants assert that the decision does not
include an affirmed rejection that includes claim 44. Thus,
Appellants request that the record state that the subject
matter of claim 44 is patentable over the cited references.
(Request, p. 3).
We have reconsidered our decision in light of all of the
arguments made in the Appellants’ request. We now clarify
the record by indicating that our statements in the body of
the original decision page 42 are correct, while the
statement in the conclusion, page 45, is incorrect. Thus, we
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007