Appeal No. 2005-2330 Application No. 10/026,123 (hereinafter referred to as “the Request for Rehearing”). However, they do not persuade us that our decision was in error in any respect. As is apparent from the Request for Rehearing, the appellants do not challenge our finding that Schmitz teaches and/or would have suggested the subject matter recited in the separately argued claims on appeal. Compare our decision, pages1 6-10, with the Request for Rehearing, pages 1-3. Nor do the appellants request that our decision be denominated as including a new ground of rejection so that they can reopen the2 prosecution of this application pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (1)(2004). See the Request for Rehearing in its entirety. The appellants only argue that “the Board does not address Appellants’ argument that the Examiner did not identify the motivation for modifying the method of the Schmitz patent with 1The appellants also do not challenge our determination that the suggestions provided in Widlund, Fletcher and Johansson are not inconsistent with the teachings already provided in Schmitz. Compare our decision, page 9, with the Request for Rehearing, pages 1-3. 2The appellants do not argue that the reasons set forth in our decision are materially different from those set forth in the Answer and therefore, our affirmance of the examiner’s decision should be treated as a new ground of rejection. See the Request for Rehearing in its entirety. 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007