Ex parte O'GROSKE et al. - Page 1




             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
             for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                 Paper No. 21         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                     Ex parte ROLLAND D. O'GROSKE, KEITH F. THARP,                    
                        SANDY J. SHIRK/HEATH, PAUL W. SCHAEFER,                       
                       SCOTT M. THORVILSON and MICHAEL K. BROWN                       
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1998-2368                                 
                              Application No. 08/443,217                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent               
          Judges.                                                                     
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from                
          the  rejection of claims 1 and 6.  We reverse.                              


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to shielded              
          cabling.  Current carrying cables are commonly shielded from                
          electromagnetic energy.  A conventional shielded cable, e.g.,               






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007