Ex Parte Anderson 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                             for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PAUL C. ANDERSON, PAUL S. CHOMET,                              
                              MATTHEW C. GRIFFOR, and ALAN L. KRIZ                                 
                                            __________                                             
                                       Appeal No.  2006-0102                                       
                                     Application No.  09/732,439                                   
                                            __________                                             
                                            ON BRIEF                                               
                                            __________                                             
              Before SCHEINER, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.                    
              ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                  

                              DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                    
                    Appellants request reconsideration (Request) of the Board’s decision           
              entered August 31, 2006 (Decision), wherein the rejection of claim 59 under the      
              written description provision of 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph was affirmed.1     
              Claims 60-63, 72, and 73 fell together with claim 59.  Appellants present two        
              arguments for our consideration.  We take each in turn.                              





                                                                                                   
              1 The rejections under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph,  102(e), and  103 were reversed.
              Having disposed of all claims under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C.  112, first
              paragraph, we did not reach the rejection under the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C.  112,
              first paragraph.                                                                     




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013