The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JIAN J. CHEN, ROBERT G. VELTROP
and THOMAS E. WICKER
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1046
Application No. 09/821,027
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before OWENS, BLANKENSHIP, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
The appellants request clarification of our decision (mailed
August 12, 2005). We treat the appellants’ request as a request
for rehearing under 37 CFR § 41.79(2004).
The appellants argue that we were inconsistent in reversing
rejections of claim 12 but not claims 13-15 and 17 that depend
directly or indirectly therefrom, and claims 32-34 but not
claims 36, 38 and 40 that depend indirectly therefrom (request,
pages 1-2).1
1 Claims 36, 38 and 40 depend directly from, respectively,
claims 35, 37 and 39 which depend directly from, respectively,
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007