Appeal 2006-2185
Application 10/248,892
5-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hawkins ‘005 or
Hawkins ‘510, each in view of Taylor and Graves.
In the Request for Reconsideration (Request), Appellants assert that
we misapprehended and/or overlooked several items in our Decision,
including the following:
(1) Taylor does not disclose dissolving urea;
(2) Hawkins ‘005 implies urea does not dissolve or is not necessarily
dissolved before heating the reaction mixture to the temperature of reaction
when using a solid form of urea; and
(3) Appellants’ statement of unexpected results and the record
evidence were improperly disregarded in our Decision.
We disagree with Appellants’ viewpoint as expressed in the Request.
The Request does not present any points that we consider to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in arriving at the Decision rendered
September 28, 2006. Cf. 37 CFR § 41.52 (“The request for rehearing must
state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board.”). In arriving at our Decision, we, of course, took
into account the arguments and evidence raised in the Briefs and the
evidence of obviousness relied on by the Examiner. The contentions made
in the Request do not persuade us that the obviousness determination and
conclusion reached in our Decision is premised on reversible factual and/or
legal error.
In particular, Appellants’ contentions in the Request about the
disclosures of Taylor and Hawkins ‘005 are misplaced and/or wrong. A
reading of those prior art references, Appellants’ specification, the Appeal
Briefs, the Examiner’s Answer, and our Decision makes this plain.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013