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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LEROY G. HAGENBUCH
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0017
Application No. 08/448,764
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated February 15, 2002, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was
affirmed based upon the sole teachings of Weber.
Appellant argues (Request, pages 2 through 8) that the Board
ignored the requirements set forth in In re Donaldson1 for
interpreting means-plus-function claimed limitations, and that
1 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007