The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RUDOLF GIETZEN
____________
Appeal No. 2006-1407
Application No. 09/661,833
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BLANKENSHIP, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant has requested a rehearing of our decision1 dated May 9, 2006, wherein
we affirmed the obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 8, 11 and 12, and
recommended to the examiner that claims 1, 9 and 10 be rejected based upon the
teachings of Kihlken.
Appellant argues (rehearing, page 2) that “Kihlken does not teach that the
terminal-receiving second sections 32 are at the end of a supply of cable 26, and thus
does not teach applying the markings or indicia 36 ‘in the region of at least one end of
the length of flat cable’ as required by Claim 11.” We disagree with appellant’s
argument. Each of the markings 36 is at an end or “termination” point where the
1
1 On page 5 of the decision, the phrase “modified at station 38” should be changed to “modified at station
44.”
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007