Ex Parte MIELKE 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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. 32              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                     Ex parte MARK P. MIELKE, STEVEN D. TUCKER,                       
          and ARTHUR R. HENNESSEY                                                     
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2002-2295                                  
                               Application 08/988,457                                 
                                     ___________                                      
                                HEARD: April 3, 2003                                  
                                     ___________                                      

          Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       



                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of               
          claims 1 through 3, 5, 7, 8, 11 through 14, 16, 17 and 20.                  
          Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18 and 19 stand objected to as being                
          dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if             
          rewritten in independent form.  Claims 21 through 32 have been              
          canceled.                                                                   

                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007