Appeal No. 2005-2522 Page 3
Application No. 09/841,453
already presented in the briefs without specifically alleging
that we overlooked arguments that were made in the briefs or that
we misapprehended any points in our Decision mailed May 31, 2006.
Compare the arguments made at pages 2-7 of the Request with the
arguments presented at pages 6 and 7 of the brief and pages 2-6
of the reply brief. However, we do not find that the request for
rehearing particularly points to any of the arguments set forth
in the briefs as having been overlooked or misapprehended in
reaching our decision of November 30, 2005.
In this regard, we are aware that appellants once again
“call upon the Board to follow their decision in the parent
case...” (Request, page 5). However, we responded to this
argument in our Decision (footnote 5, pages 8 and 9) by stating
that “we find that the combined teachings of Jin and Grainger
make out a prima facie case of obviousness that has not been
persuasively refuted by appellants on this record” and by
observing that: “we need not reach the additional teachings of
Kotelnikov.” In footnote 5 of the prior decision we further1
1We note that appellants have not argued, much less
persuasively so, that a new ground of rejection was involved in
our finding that the combination of the teachings of Jin and
Grainger (two of the three references applied by the examiner in
the rejection under consideration) furnish sufficient evidence,
by themselves, to make out a prima facie case of obviousness of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007