onecle

Ex Parte Varela 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                         for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 TOMAZ DOPICO VARELA                                              
                                      and STEVEN E. HUNTER                                                  
                                              ____________                                                  
                                            Appeal 2007-0944                                                
                                          Application 11/159,426                                            
                                         Technology Center 3600                                             
                                              ____________                                                  
                                         Decided: APRIL 18, 2007                                            
                                              ____________                                                  
               Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and                                              
               JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.                                              
               KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                         


                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                      This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 18,             
               and 20-26.  Claims 5, 8, 15-17, 19, and 27-28 have been indicated as                         
               allowable by the examiner.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                         
                      1.  A vehicle wheel end assembly comprising:                                          
                      a non-rotating wheel component;                                                       




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013