Ex Parte FALACE 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          was not written for publication and is not binding precedent                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. 14              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                             Ex parte JOSEPH P. FALACE,                               
                                  JOSEPH P. MANES,                                    
                                         and                                          
                                   DANIEL J. PLUTT                                    
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2000-1811                                  
                               Application 08/879,638                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       

          Before BARRETT, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      
                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
               Appellants request that we reconsider that portion of our              
          decision of July 31, 2002 wherein we sustained the Examiner’s               
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, and 17              
          based on Semmlow, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of            
          claims 3, 6, 7, 11, and 12 based on Semmlow alone, the 35 U.S.C.            
          § 103(a) rejection of claim 13 based on Semmlow and Burke, and              

                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007