Ex parte WACHTLER et al. - Page 1




          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
                   publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.             

                                                            Paper No. 31              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                             Ex parte KURT P. WACHTLER,                               
                                  DAVID N. WALTER,                                    
                                        and                                           
                                   LARRY J. MOWATT                                    
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1998-0152                                  
                             Application No. 07/966,645                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before THOMAS, KRASS, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               Appellants request that we reconsider that part of our                 
          decision of September 30, 2000 wherein we sustained the                     
          rejection of claims 26-42, 44, 46-54, 56, 57 and 59-63.                     
               Appellants first argue that Eichelberger “has nothing                  
          whatsoever to do with optical interconnects or the                          
          transmission or reception of optical energy in any form.”                   






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007