onecle

Ex Parte Howes 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                      written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 RONALD BRUCE HOWES, JR.,                                            
                           ROBERT EUGENE MAY, and DAVID HOWLAND                                               
                                            ________________                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-2046                                                 
                                           Application 10/328,497                                             
                                          Technology Center 1700                                              
                                            ________________                                                  
                                           Decided:  June 8, 2007                                             
                                            ________________                                                  
                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and                                                    
                JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.                                               
                KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                               ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER                                                
                      Appellants state that “[t]his is an appeal from the final rejection of                  
                claims 17-25 and 28-36 (Br. 1).  The Examiner, however, states at page 2 of                   
                the Answer that “the status of the claims is as follows:  claims 18, 24-25 and                
                28-36 are objected” (Answer, third para.), and that “[t]here is an objection to               
                both the specification and claims 18, 21, 23-25 and 28-36 . . . [which]                       

                                                                                                             



Page:  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013