Ex parte REESE - 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of                 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. 88              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                                Ex parte MORRIS REESE                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 1999-1612                                  
                                Application 08/614,188                                
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      

          Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent               
          Judges.                                                                     
          FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       


                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                


               Appellant requests that we reconsider our decision dated               
          February 28, 2001.  In this decision we reversed the rejection              
          of claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Blakley in view of                   
          Lottes et al. or Hattori and affirmed the rejection of claim                


                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007