Ex Parte POLLARD - 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                     publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17         
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    ____________                                      
                           Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. POLLARD                            
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1999-1543                                  
                             Application No. 08/456,762                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      
          Before BARRETT, LALL, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                          


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from                
          the Examiner's final rejection1 of claims 1, 2, 7 to 9, 13, 14,             
          19 to 21, 25 and 26.  Claims 3 to 6, 10 to 12, 15 to 18 and 22 to           
          24 have been canceled.                                                      
               The disclosed invention relates to a cartridge engagement              
          system for use in an optical disk storage and retrieval system.             
          The cartridge engagement system uses gripping means to retrieve a           

               1                                                                      
               1 The obvious double patenting rejection on these claims has           
          been obviated by Appellant's offer to file a terminal disclaimer,           
          see brief at page 2.                                                        




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007