Ex Parte KERN 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            written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23              


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                       Ex parte MICHAEL KERN and IRVIN BURNS                          
                                   _____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 2002-1066                                  
                             Application No. 09/304,021                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    
          Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT, and STAAB,  Administrative Patent                 
          Judges.                                                                     
          STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final              
          rejection of claims 1-8 and 19-27, all the claims currently                 
          pending in the application.  Subsequent to the final rejection,             
          the examiner objected to claims 2, 3, 21 and 25 as depending from           
          rejected claims, but otherwise considered these claims to be                
          allowable (answer, pages 3-4).  Thus, the appeal now involves               
          only claims 1, 4-8, 19, 20, 22-24, 26 and 27.                               








Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007