Ex Parte GENHEIMER 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                         not binding precedent of the Board                           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. 16                   
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                    _______________                                   
                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                         
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                    _______________                                   
                             Ex parte STEPHEN R. GENHEIMER,                           
                           KENNETH L. POTTEBAUM, JON P. BAKER                         
                                 and JOHN D. STRICKLIN                                
                                     ______________                                   
                                   Appeal No. 2000-1232                               
                              Application 09/114,954                                  
                                    _______________                                   
                              ON BRIEF                                                
                                    _______________                                   
          Before THOMAS, BARRETT and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                                                                                     
                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                 
               Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner's              
          final rejection of claims 18-24.  Of these claims, the examiner             
          has indicated the allowability of claims 18-23 at pages 2 and 5             
          of the answer.  Therefore, only claim 24 remains for our                    
          consideration on appeal.                                                    



                                          1                                           




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007