onecle

Ex Parte Rupich et al - 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            2              for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board                               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 MARTIN W. RUPICH and THOMAS A. KODENKANDATH                                            
          12                               ____________________                                                    
          13                                                                                                       
          14                                   Appeal 2007-2236                                                    
          15                                 Application 10/991,738                                                
          16                                Technology Center 1700                                                 
          17                               ____________________                                                    
          18                                                                                                       
          19                                 Decided: June 29, 2007                                                
          20                               ____________________                                                    
          21                                                                                                       
          22    Before  FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge,                                      
          23    and ROMULO H. DELMENDO and MICHAEL P. TIERNEY,                                                     
          24    Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                      
          25                                                                                                       
          26    McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.                                                      
          27                                                                                                       
          28                               DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
          29                                                                                                       
          30           A.  Statement of the case                                                                   
          31           Appellants Martin W. Rupich and Thomas A. Kodenkandath                                      
          32    (hereafter "Rupich") seek review under 35 U.S.C.  134(a) of a rejection of                        
          33    claims 89-96, the only claims remaining in the application on appeal.                              
          34           The reader should know that no references to et al. are made in this                        
          35    opinion.                                                                                           
          36           We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).                                                




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013