onecle

Ex Parte Hu - Page 1





          1             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not                                    
          2              written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                                   
          3                                                                                                                   
          4                                                                                                                   
          5                UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                          
          6                                          _____________                                                            
          7                                                                                                                   
          8                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                          
          9                                     AND INTERFERENCES                                                             
         10                                          _____________                                                            
         11                                                                                                                   
         12                                       Ex parte BOBBY HU                                                           
         13                                          _____________                                                            
         14                                                                                                                   
         15                                      Appeal No. 2007-1217                                                         
         16                                   Application No. 10/219,135                                                      
         17                                     Technology Center 3600                                                        
         18                                         ______________                                                            
         19                                                                                                                   
         20                                     Decided: March 28, 2007                                                       
         21                                         _______________                                                           
         22                                                                                                                   
         22 Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and ROBERT E.                                                   
         23                                                                                                                   
         23 NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                              
         24                                                                                                                   
         25                                                                                                                   
         25 PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                           
         26                                                                                                                   
         27                                                                                                                   
         28                                                                                                                   
         29                                     DECISION ON APPEAL                                                            
         30                                                                                                                   
         31           This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, 20-39,                          
         32   and 41-55.  These are the only claims remaining in the application.  We have                                    
         33   jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  134 (2002).                                                                      
         34           The claimed invention is a pawl for a reversible ratcheting wrench.  The                                
         35   pawl is characterized by two circular portions having engaging teeth, with each                                 
         36   circular toothed portion having a separate center of curvature.                                                 




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013