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is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRYAN DAVID HAYNES, BILLY DEAN ARNOLD,
JUSTIN MAX DUELLMAN, RYAN CLINTON FRANK,
JEFFERY LAWRENCE MCMANUS, CHARLES ALLEN SMITH,
TY JACKSON STOKES, KEVIN EDWARD SMITH, DARRYL FRANKLIN CLARK,
DEBRA JEAN MCDOWALL, SAMUEL EDWARD MARMON,
CHRISTOPHER COSGROVE CREAGAN, XIN NING and DAVID LEWIS MYERS
____________
Appeal No. 2002-2246
Application No. 09/192,110
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicants appeal the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims
1 to 20 and 43 to 46, all of the claims present in the application.1, 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
1 In rendering our decision, we have considered Appellants’ arguments presented in the
Brief, filed February 8, 2002 and the Reply Brief, filed July 2, 2002. We have considered the
Examiner’s position presented in the Answer, mailed April 23, 2002.
2 The Examiner has indicated that the after Final amendment, filed August 30, 2001, has
been entered and the rejection of claims 1 to 20 and 43 to 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn. (Answer, p. 2). However, the amendment has not been clerically
entered in the record. Prior to disposition of the application, the Examiner should ensure that the
amendment is properly entered into the record.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007