The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board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 MELVIN HATCH
______________
Appeal No. 2005-0941
Application 09/941,029
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FRANKFORT, BAHR and FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This is in response to appellant’s request for rehearing of the decision mailed February
23, 2006, wherein a merits panel of the Board affirmed the examiner's various rejections of
claims 1 through 4, 6, 7 and 9 through 18. The rejections of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) were not sustained. Appellant now seeks rehearing only as to the affirmance of the
obviousness rejections of dependent claims 9 and 10, more specifically, of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Emmer, of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Margulies, of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Spremulli and Emmer, and
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007