Appeal No. 2005-0686
Application 10/298,968
us. Nor do we see any argument from Appellants of how such an intended use limitation
structurally (or functionally) changes the apparatus of claim 11.
As was stated in the decision at page 5, “we find the ‘perceived content’ and ‘category’
are the same.” Nothing in Appellants’ request points out a structural limitation in the claims that
distinguishes among the disclosed mechanisms or over the prior art.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants’ request for rehearing to the
extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny Appellants’ request with respect to making any
change thereto.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007