Ex Parte Roseth - Page 1



           1     The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written                   
           2              for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board                           
           3                                                                                                  
           4            UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                             
           5                             ____________________                                                 
           6                                                                                                  
           7                 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                               
           8                             AND INTERFERENCES                                                    
           9                             ____________________                                                 
          10                                                                                                  
          11                          Ex parte ROSETH STEVEN H.                                               
          12                             ____________________                                                 
          13                                                                                                  
          14                                 Appeal 2006-3311                                                 
          15                               Application 10/392,525                                             
          16                              Technology Center 3700                                              
          17                             ____________________                                                 
          18                                                                                                  
          19                               Decided: May 18, 2007                                              
          20                             ____________________                                                 
          21                                                                                                  
          22    Before TEDDY S. GRON, JAMESON LEE, and JAMES T. MOORE,                                        
          23    Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                 
          24                                                                                                  
          25    MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                           
          26                                                                                                  
          27                                                                                                  
          28                             DECISION ON APPEAL                                                   
          29                             STATEMENT OF CASE                                                    
          30          The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C.  134 (2002) from a final                         
          31    rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-15.  We have jurisdiction under 35                     
          32    U.S.C.  6(b) (2002).                                                                         
          33          The Appellant claims a reclosable food container which is made from                     
          34    a single blank.  A representative  independent claim under appeal reads as                    
          35    follows:                                                                                      





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

Last modified: September 9, 2013