Ex parte PFEFFERLE - 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the                        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. 14           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    ____________                                      
                            Ex parte WILLIAM C. PFEFFERLE                             
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1998-1493                                  
                             Application No. 08/377,861                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      

          Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge,  ABRAMS, and              
          MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                      
          ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner                    
          finally rejecting claims 1-10, which constitute all of the                  
          claims of record in the application.                                        
               The appellant's invention is directed to an emissions                  
          control system for a rich-burn, small internal combustion                   






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007