onecle

Ex Parte Hall - 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                                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 EVERETT HALL                                                           
                                                         ____________                                                              
                                                       Appeal 2006-1143                                                            
                                                     Application 10/256,703                                                        
                                                         ____________                                                              
                                                           ON BRIEF                                                                
                                                         ____________                                                              
                   Before PATE, BAHR, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                     
                   PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                              


                                                    DECISION ON APPEAL                                                             
                          This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 9.  Claims 17-22                      
                   were previously allowed, and claims 10-13 and 15 were allowed in the examiner's                                 
                   answer.  Claims 8 and 16 stand objected to as depending from a rejected independent                             
                   claims.  These are all the claims in the application.                                                           
                          The claimed invention is directed to a suspension system for an automobile that                          
                   has front and rear hydraulic actuators.  Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative                     
                   of the claimed subject matter.                                                                                  
                          1.   A suspension system for a vehicle, comprising:                                                      
                          a vehicle frame having a front section and a rear section;                                               





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013