Ex Parte RICK 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                         Ex parte THOMAS RICK, PETER WAGNER,                          
                                  and SIEGLEIF LENART                                 
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2000-0435                                 
                              Application No. 08/614,930                              
                                     ____________                                     
                               HEARD: December 11, 2001                               
                                     ____________                                     
          Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.         
          HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      



                                 REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               Appellants have requested a rehearing of our decision dated            
          December 26, 2001, wherein the decision of the examiner rejecting           
          claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13 through 19, 21 and 22 was affirmed            
          based upon the sole teachings of Dortenzio.                                 
               Appellants argue (request, pages 3 and 4) that:                        
               [T]he apparatus in Dortenzio et al and its method of                   
               operation clearly do not satisfy the limitations of Claim              
               1.  That is, Claim 1 recites that “data which define use               
               restrictions applicable to the vehicle are stored in the               




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007