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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HENRY S. EILTS
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-2134
Application No. 08/868,663
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant has requested reconsideration of our decision
dated June 27, 2002, wherein we affirmed the lack of written
description rejection of claims 25, 28 and 29, the anticipation
rejection of claims 21, 27 and 29 over either Dudek, Albrow or
Barnes, and the anticipation rejection of claims 21 through 29.
Appellant’s arguments (request, page 2) concerning the
“multiple of 10 milliseconds” delay in claim 25 have been
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007