Appeal No. 2004-2036 3
Application No. 09/885,264
For the foregoing reasons, appellant’s request for rehearing does not persuade
us of any error in our decision to sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rius.
We turn next to appellant’s request for rehearing of our decision entering a new
ground of rejection of claims 2 and 3 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Appellant’s explanation of the process of designing appellant’s invention does nothing to
remedy the fact that appellant’s claims 2 and 3 are drafted in language which renders
the scope of these claims unclear, for the reasons discussed on pages 5 and 6 of our
decision. It follows that appellant’s request for rehearing fails to persuade us of any
error in our decision to enter a new ground of rejection of claims 2 and 3 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
CONCLUSION
Appellants’ request for rehearing has been granted to the extent of our
reconsidering our earlier decision but has been denied to the extent of our making any
modification to that earlier decision. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rius remains affirmed and claims 2 and 3 remain rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. This decision on appellant’s overall appeal
is now final for purposes of judicial review.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007