Ex Parte Ellis - 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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. 20              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                           Ex parte FRAMPTON E. ELLIS III                             
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2004-0253                                  
                               Application 09/933,821                                 
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      
          Before FRANKFORT, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                     


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   


          This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                      
          rejection of claims 21 through 34, 36, 37, 39 through 42, 44                
          through 53, 55 through 57, 59 and 60.  At the time of the final             
          rejection, claim 43 was objected to as being dependent upon a               
          rejected base claim, but was also indicated to be allowable if              
          rewritten in independent form, while claims 1 through 20, 35, 38,           
          54 and 58 were canceled.  Subsequent to the final rejection, the            

                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007