Appeal No. 2004-0394 Page 13
Application No. 09/915,467
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those presented in the Decision, we are
not persuaded by appellant’s assertion that the “references do not suggest the claimed
combination.” Request, pages 5-6 and n. 3.
CONCLUSION
We have carefully reviewed the original opinion in light of appellant’s Request,
but we find no point of law or fact that we overlooked or misapprehended in arriving at
our decision. Therefore, appellant’s request has been granted to the extent that the
decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect to making any
modifications to the Decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REHEARING DENIED
)
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Donald E. Adams ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007