Ex Parte JUNDT - 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               written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 40         
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                                Ex parte LARRY O. JUNDT                               
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2000-0396                                 
                              Application No. 08/527,886                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.          
          GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                 
          rejection of claims 1 through 23 and 48 through 73.  In the                 
          Examiner's Answer (page 4) the examiner withdraws the rejection             
          of claims 1 through 23 and 48 through 73 as being based upon a              
          defective reissue declaration and of claims 9 through 14, 17, 23,           
          52 through 60, 69, and 70 as being obvious over Cromwell.                   
          Accordingly, all rejections of claims 1 through 23 have been                
          withdrawn, and only claims 48 through 73 remain before us on                
          appeal.                                                                     
               Appellant's invention relates to a process control terminal            
          which displays process control function information and                     







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007