Ex Parte THIELMAN - 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23         

                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     ____________                                     
                              Ex parte W. SCOTT THIELMAN                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2000-1213                                 
                              Application No. 08/566,006                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                 HEARD: March 19, 2002                                
                                     ____________                                     
          Before PAK, LIEBERMAN, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent               
          Judges.                                                                     
          PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.                                           



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the         
          examiner’s final rejection of claims 8 through 19.  Claims 1                
          through 7, the remaining claims in the application, stand withdrawn         
          from consideration by the examiner as being directed to a non-              
          elected invention.                                                          
          According to appellant (Brief, page 3), “[t]he claims of the                
          rejected group are believed to be each separately patentable...”            








Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007