Ex parte ASH et al. - Page 1




                    THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                      
          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                  
          (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and                    
          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                  
                                                            Paper No. 33              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                               Ex parte CARLTON E. ASH                                
                                  and JON F. GEIBEL                                   
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 1996-3724                                  
                               Application 08/120,305                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                      REHEARING                                       
                                     __________                                       

          Before KIMLIN, JOHN D. SMITH, and GARRIS, Administrative                    
          Patent Judges.                                                              
          GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                               ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                               
               This is in response to a request, filed August 2, 1999,                
          for rehearing/reconsideration of our decision, mailed May 28,               
          1999, wherein we sustained the examiner’s section 103                       
          rejections of the appealed claims as being unpatentable over                
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007