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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FREIDOON MEHRAD and KYLE A. PICONE
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-1371
Application No. 09/120,712
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request that we reconsider our decision of July
31, 2003 wherein we sustained the Examiner’s obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1-7, 13 and 14 over claims
1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,659,900 to Mehrad. A review of
Appellants’ request reveals that no actual errors in our original
decision have been asserted by Appellants. Indeed, the sum and
substance of Appellants’ request is the submission of a terminal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007