Appeal No. 2005-2522 Page 2
Application No. 09/841,453
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-19 of U.S. patent
No. 6,318,124 in view of Grainger and Kotelnikov.
37 CFR § 41.52 (emphasis supplied) provides, in part, that:
§ 41.52 Rehearing.
(a)(1) Appellant may file a single request for
rehearing within two months of the date of the original
decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a
decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the
rehearing decision so modified the original decision as
to become, in effect, a new decision, and the Board
states that a second request for rehearing would be
permitted. The request for rehearing must state with
particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Arguments
not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence
not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply
brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing
except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of
this section. When a request for rehearing is made,
the Board shall render a decision on the request for
rehearing. The decision on the request for rehearing
is deemed to incorporate the earlier opinion reflecting
its decision for appeal, except for those portions
specifically withdrawn on rehearing, and is final for
the purpose of judicial review, except when noted
otherwise in the decision on rehearing.
(2) Upon a showing of good cause, appellant may present
a new argument based upon a recent relevant decision of
either the Board or a Federal Court.
(3) New arguments responding to a new ground of
rejection made pursuant to § 41.50(b) are permitted.
Here, appellants’ request for rehearing does not identify
and particularly state any points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in rendering our prior decision upon
which rehearing is sought. Rather, appellants recast arguments
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007