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.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007