Appeal No. 2005-1294
Application No. 09/785,100
carrier of a type not discussed.” See the Request for Rehearing,
page 5. Having agreed with the appellant’s description of the
conventional ring carrier as indicated supra, we need not grant
this request. 2
The appellant requests that footnote 2 in the Decision “be
withdrawn so as not to confuse the record.” See the Request for
Rehearing, pages 5 and 6. We decline.
As is apparent from the statements in the footnote in
question, it is no more than advice to the examiner “in the event
of further prosecution.” We observe no confusion in the record.
In view of the foregoing, the appellant’s request for
rehearing is granted to the extent of reconsidering our Decision,
but is denied with respect to making any change thereto.
2Even if assuming, arguendo, the Decision includes a new
ground of rejection, we note the appellant’s statement that
“[t]he Board’s decision constitutes new grounds of rejection
warranting re-hearing.” See the Request for Rehearing, page 3.
This statement indicates that the appellant exercised his option
of rehearing the case based on the same record in accordance with
37 CFR § 41.50(b)(2004). Thus, pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.52 (a)(1)
(2004), we need not permit further rehearing from a decision on
rehearing.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007