Ex Parte Schmidt - Page 1

                          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                             
                                     is not binding precedent of the Board                                       
                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                               
                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                 
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                     
                                         Ex parte HORST SCHMIDT                                                  
                                              Appeal 2007-0505                                                   
                                            Application 10/402,476                                               
                                           Technology Center 1700                                                
                                        Decided:  September 11, 2007                                             
                Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and                                                 
                THOMAS A. WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                   
                WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                             

                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                    
                       Appellant appeals to the Board from the decision of the Primary                           
                Examiner finally rejecting claims 1 through 19 in the Office Action mailed                       
                October 7, 2005.  35 U.S.C.  6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R.  41.31(a)                         
                       We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.                                          
                       Claim 1 illustrates Appellant’s invention of a method of producing a                      
                molded article, and is representative of the claims on appeal:                                   

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013