Ex parte DAVIN STOWELL - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-2818                                                          
          Application No. 07/985,918                                                  


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final              
          rejection of claims 1 through 12 in this reissue application. No            
          other claims are pending in the application.                                
               Appealed claims 1 through 12 stand rejected under the first            
          and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 251. There are no other                
          rejections of the appealed claims before us. Accordingly, the               
          only issue in this appeal is the propriety of the examiner’s                
          rejection under § 251.                                                      
               Prior to filing the subject reissue application, appellants            
          filed a first broadening reissue application (07/985,918) on                
          June 5, 1991. After the subject reissue application was filed,              
          the first reissue application matured into Reissue Patent No.               
          RE 34,194 on March 16, 1993.                                                
               In support of his rejection, the examiner’s main position is           
          that having already granted one reissue patent on the original              
          patent, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks lacks                    
          statutory authority to now grant another reissue patent.                    
          Reference is made to the examiner’s answer and to the office                
          action dated April 19, 1995 (Paper No. 19) for further details of           
          the examiner’s rejection.                                                   
               Subsequent to the examiner’s answer, appellants filed a                

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007