Ex Parte Bhatt et al - 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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.                                                                      


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                    Ex parte ASHWINKUMAR C. BHATT, JOHN C. CAMP,                      
              MARY BETH FLETCHER, KENNETH L. POTTER, and JOHN A. WELSH                
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2005-1195                                  
                             Application No. 09/906,984                               
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       
          Before GARRIS, TIMM, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.            
          GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               This is in response to a request, received August 30, 2005             
          for rehearing of our decision, mailed July 18, 2005, wherein we             
          sustained each of the section 102 and section 103 rejections                
          advanced by the examiner.                                                   
               Our reasons for sustaining these rejections included                   
          rebuttals to the appellants’ several arguments thereagainst                 
                                          1                                           




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007