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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GEORGE C. TUNIS, III,
WILLIAM H. SEEMANN, III,
and
PASS CHRISTIAN
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0775
Application No. 08/612,251
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before KRATZ, TIMM, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to the provision of 37 CFR § 1.197(b)(amended
December 1, 1997), appellants have submitted a Request for
Rehearing (hereafter “Request”) of our decision dated January 24,
2003.
In appellants’ request, appellants state that there is no
mention within Seemann of using a portion of the bag as a mold
for the article. (Request, page 2.)
Appellants also state that they appreciate the Board’s point
that the bag disclosed in Seemann is rigid enough in maintaining
its internal channel structure to be interpreted as a mold in
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007