Ex parte RUPPEL et al. - Page 1




           The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
                     publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 REMY RUPPEL, PIERRE LAURENT and JOEL HUNGLER                 
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1996-3589                                  
                             Application No. 08/098,325                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      
          Before GARRIS, PAK and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.                 
          OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               Appellants request that we reconsider our decision mailed              
          on February 3, 2000 wherein we affirmed the rejection of                    
          claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.  103 over Schulz, Donnelly,                    
          Thomas or Wells, each taken alone or in view of Nystrand.                   
               Appellants argue that 1) not all of the claimed features               
          are taught in the prior art and, therefore, optimization                    
          cannot provide for obviousness of each of the claimed                       
          features, 2) Schulz teaches only a tip-to-tip assembly having               
          a single pattern of deep and shallow bosses, and does not                   






Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007