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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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