The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 JAE-HO MOON, DAE-SOON LIM, and O-HYUN BAEK
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0247
Application No. 10/171,657
____________
HEARD: May 4, 2005
____________
Before KRASS, BARRY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-27. The appellants appealed. We affirmed.
Ex parte Moon, No. 2005-0247 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. May 31, 2005). The appellants now
asks us to reconsider our affirmance of the examiner's rejections. (Req. Reh'g1 at 1.)
1The appellants cite 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2)(2005), (Req. Reh'g at 1), which
allows an appellant to request a rehearing when the Board has entered a new ground of
rejection. Here, because we entered no such new ground, the request under
§ 41.50(b)(2) is improper. In the interest of economy, however, we treat the request as
if it was made under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007