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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 LARRY D. KINSMAN, JERRY M. BROOKS, WARREN M. FARNWORTH,
WALTER L. MODEN and TERRY R. LEE
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1398
Application No. 10/202,359
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, NASE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 7
and 8, as amended subsequent to the final rejection. According to the examiner’s
answer (page 3), claims 4-6 and 9-17, the only other claims pending in this application,
stand allowed. The obviousness-type double patenting rejection set forth in the final
rejection has apparently been withdrawn,1 as it has not been re-stated in the answer.
1 The record appears to indicate that this rejection was overcome by the filing of a Terminal
Disclaimer on September 2, 2003.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007