Appeal No. 2002-2256
Application 09/286,304
of claims 10-13, 15, 17-20, 22, and 24, and reversed the
rejection of claims 14, 16, 21, and 23.
We vacate the portion of the original decision concerning
claims 10-13, 15, 17-20, 22, and 24, and affirm the rejection of
those claims based on the examiner's original rejection.
OPINION
It is argued that we are not authorized to "sustain," but
are only authorized to "affirm" (RR4). We "sustain" a rejection,
but "affirm" a decision, which we did at the end of the opinion.
See 37 CFR § 41.50(a) ("The Board, in its decision, may affirm or
reverse the decision of the examiner ...."). "Sustain" means to
uphold or rule in favor of, whereas "affirm" means to confirm a
judgment on appeal. We see nothing wrong with our use of
"sustain" to refer to a rejection, although it is also possible
to say that a rejection is "affirmed."
Appellants' request for rehearing presents some good
arguments which caused us to reconsider both the examiner's
rejection and our decision. We now feel that our reasoning was
unnecessary and that the examiner's reasoning was sufficient.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of our original opinion
wherein we sustained the rejection of claims 10-13, 15, 17-20,
22, and 24, and substitute the following decision on those same
claims. The request for rehearing is moot. Appellants have the
right to request rehearing of this opinion.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007