Ex Parte GIULIANI et al - Page 2




          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