The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LOYD R. HORNBACK III and JOSEPH C. PEISERT
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1854
Application No. 08/971,851
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WALTZ, TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s
final rejection of claims 12 through 16, 18 through 20, 23 through
25, 27 through 31, 34, and 36 through 47.1 Claim 26 is the only
other claim pending and stands allowed by the examiner (Brief, page
1Claim 43 was not listed as a pending claim by the examiner
in the final rejection dated July 1, 2003, Paper No. 32, see page
1. As explained by appellants (Response dated Sep. 2, 2003, page
1), claim 43 was apparently omitted in the examiner’s final
Office action due to inadvertent misnumbering/cancellation but is
still a pending claim. Since claim 43 has been included as a
pending claim in the Brief (page 2) and in the rejections on
appeal (Answer, pages 4 and 7), we consider this claim to be
included in appellants’ appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007