Appeal No. 2005-2330
Application No. 10/026,123
aspects of” other secondary references. See the Request for
Rehearing in its entirety. However, in so arguing, they ignore
the factual findings set forth in our decision identifying the
teachings and suggestions provided in the primary reference,
Schmitz, relied upon by the examiner, which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter defined by the
separately argued claims on appeal. See our decision, pages 6-
10. Inasmuch as the appellants do not assert that we
misapprehended the teachings/suggestion provided in Schmitz or
that our reliance on the teachings/suggestions in Schmitz
constitutes a new ground or rejection, we cannot agree with the
appellants that our decision contains any reversible error.
In view of the foregoing, the appellants’ request for
rehearing is granted to the extent of reconsidering our decision,
but is denied with respect to making any change thereto.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007