Ex Parte WATTS - 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                           Ex parte LAVAUGHN F. WATTS JR,                             
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1999-2052                                 
                              Application No. 08/572,202                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before SMITH, LALL, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.          
          LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                          

                               ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                               
               Appellant requests that we reconsider our decision of May 6,           
          2002, wherein we sustained, under 35 U.S.C. § 103,  the rejection           
          of claims 1, 4-9, 16, 17, 39, 41-43, 45-47, 49-51, 53, 54, 63, 64           
          and 66 over Smith and Kikinis; the rejection of claims 21-27, 55,           
          56, 58-60, 62, 67 and 70-74 over Smith, Kikinis and Kenny; and of           
          claims 28 and 29 over Smith, Kikinis and Gephardt; however, we did          
          not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 10, 18 and 30-38 over Smith          
          and Kikinis.                                                                






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007