Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application No. 09/776,364
address them. Besides making reference to the Final Rejection in this
portion of the Request for Rehearing instead of the Answer, Appellant’s
arguments here take essentially the same approach as set forth at pages 19
and 20 of the principal Brief on appeal as to the same claims. We said at the
top of page 9 of our prior Decision that the arguments as to the fourth and
fifth stated rejections principally were directed to Gartner and the alleged
deficiencies of this reference (some of which we agreed with in our prior
Decision). Appellant’s arguments as to Fitting in the Request for Rehearing
appear to us to fail to consider the Examiner’s reasoning of combinability in
the Answer and our embellishments on them at pages 7 and 8 of the prior
Decision. Rather than misapprehending and overlooking points raised by
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we have simply not agreed with them.
In view of the foregoing, we have considered Appellant’s positions set
forth in the Request for Rehearing but do did not consider them to be
persuasive to change the views and decision expressed in our prior Decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
DENIED
tdl
Dan C. Hu
Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C.
Suite 100
8554 Katy Freeway
Houston, TX 77024
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013