Appeal 2007-0738
Application 11/109,274
body entirely. The concept of “within” is not congruent with the concept of
“throughout.”
Appellants also contend that “except for when the entire volume has a
uniform distribution, the board’s interpretation would render ‘uniformly’ to
mean the same thing as ‘non-uniformly’” (Request 3, last para.). However,
it is not logically inconsistent for an element to be non-uniformly distributed
throughout the entirety of a ceramic body while uniformly distributed within
a particular portion of the body.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, Appellants’ request is granted
to the extent we have reconsidered our decision, but is denied with respect to
making any change therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
DENIED
clj
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION
P. O. BOX 1967
MIDLAND, MI 48641-1967
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3
Last modified: September 9, 2013