Ex Parte MASSOD - 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          was not written for publication and is not binding precedent                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. 31              
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                               Ex parte PAUL E. MASSOD                                
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2004-0023                                  
                               Application 09/334,574                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       
          Before JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO, and MACDONALD, Administrative                 
          Patent Judges.                                                              
          RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      

                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               Appellant requests that we reconsider our decision of August           
          17, 2004 wherein we sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claims            
          1-4, 6-16, and 18-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  We have                     
          reconsidered our decision of August 17, 2004 in light of                    
          Appellant’s comments in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no           


                                          1                                           




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007