Ex parte SEEL - Page 1




                  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                         (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 76              

                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                                Ex parte ROY D. SEEL                                  
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1997-2021                                  
                             Application No. 08/500,231                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and KRASS, Administrative Patent                    
          Judges                                                                      
          THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                

               In a paper filed September 20, 2000, appellant requests                
          that we reconsider or rehear our decision dated March 22,                   
          2000, where- in we sustained the rejection of claims 21                     
          through 24, 26 through 28, 30 and 31 under the public use                   
          clause of 35 U.S.C.  102(b).  The application file reveals                 
          that subsequent to our earlier decision in March, appellant                 

                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007