Ex parte Wanzke et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2000

08080449 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2000)

Application for patent filed June 21, 1993. According 1
to applicant, this application is a continuation of Application
07/954,412, filed September 30, 1992, now abandoned; which is a
continuation of Application 07/580,588, filed September 11, 1990,
now abandoned. Applicants also claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C.
§ 119 of the September 13, 1989, filing date of Fed. Rep. Germany
P 39 30 507.4.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 53
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WOLFGANG WANZKE, GUNTER SIEGEMUND
and WILFRIED SCHMIEDER
____________
Appeal No. 1996-0532
Application 08/080,4491
____________
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
____________
Before WINTERS, GRON, and ROBINSON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GRON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1996-0532
Application 08/080,449
- 2 -
REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 CFR § 1.197(b)
On January 24, 2000, appellants filed “Response To
Decision On Appeal Under 35 U.S.C. § 134", in effect
requesting rehearing of our Decision on Appeal Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134, mailed November 17, 1999 (Paper No. 51) under 37 CFR §
1.197(b). Other than commentary with regard to applicable
fees, the paper reads
(page 1 of 2 pages):
In response to the Decision mailed November 17,
1999, the Applicants request that the application be
reheard under §1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences upon the same record. (See option
no. 2 at page 15 of the Decision).
Pertinent to our ruling on appellants’ request for
rehearing under 37 CFR § 1.197(b), the regulation requires:
The request for rehearing must state with particularity
the points believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked in rendering the decision and also state
all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought.
Because appellants have provided no justification whatsoever
for rehearing this appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Appellants’ request for rehearing of Appeal No. 1996-0532
under 37 CFR § 1.197(b) is denied.
Appeal No. 1996-0532
Application 08/080,449
- 3 -
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
DENIED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TEDDY S. GRON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TSG/jlb
Appeal No. 1996-0532
Application 08/080,449
- 4 -
CONNOLLY AND HUTZ
P. O. BOX 2207
WILMINGTON , DE 19899