Ex Parte HAGENBUCH - 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               written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                             Ex parte LEROY G. HAGENBUCH                              
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1999-0017                                  
                             Application No. 08/448,764                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    
          Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.           
          HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      


                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               In a decision dated February 15, 2002, the decision of the             
          examiner rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was               
          affirmed based upon the sole teachings of Weber.                            
               Appellant argues (Request, pages 2 through 8) that the Board           
          ignored the requirements set forth in In re Donaldson1 for                  
          interpreting means-plus-function claimed limitations, and that              


               1 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994).                       




Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007