Court Opinion

ID: 9468372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:13:15.926949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:50.441858
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellee’s petition for rehearing points out that appellants sought review in district court of the propriety of the PTO’s refusal to grant a patent on claim 1-5 of their application. See Complaint, at 3-4, reprinted in App. at 5-6. Appellee also notes that claims 4 and 5 relate to d/nitroglycoluril, and not tetranitroglycoluril, which is described in claims 1-3. See App. at 118. Appellee contends that the patentability of claims 4 and 5 hinges solely on whether the Minsky report was available to the public, an issue we resolved in favor of appellee in our original opinion. Appellee therefore requests that we grant rehearing and modify our opinion to make clear that the denial of a patent on claims 4 and 5 is affirmed. However, the only issue before us on appeal was whether the district court erred in affirming the denial of a patent on claim 1, the major claim describing the compound tetranitroglycoluril. In their reply brief, appellants stated that “[cjlaims 2-5 are of minor value and are not in issue.” Appellants’ Reply Brief at 23 (emphasis added). We accordingly limited our consideration to the propriety of the district court’s affirmance of the denial of a patent on claim 1, and decline to address other issues today. Therefore, the petition for rehearing is denied because it invites us to reach beyond the issue that was raised on appeal.

So ordered.