Ex Parte Casazza - 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                  written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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  JAMES CASAZZA                                         
                                      Appeal No. 2006-2228                                         
                                    Application No. 10/231,678                                     
                                        _______________                                            
                                           ON BRIEF                                                
                                        _______________                                            

            Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent                         
            Judges.                                                                                
            JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                              
                                           DECISION                                                
            This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the                        
            examiner’s final rejection of claims 11, 12, 20-22, and 35-38.  After the filing       
            of the appeal brief, the examiner withdrew rejections of claims 11, 12, 20-22,         
            and 36 [answer, page 2].  Therefore, this appeal is now directed to the rejection      
            of claims 35, 37, and 38.                                                              

                                                                                                  




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007