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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte LANCE E. BARSNICK,
DAVID M. ZALK, CATHERINE M. PERRY,
TERRY BIGGS and ROBERT E. TAGESON
__________
Appeal No. 2002-2111
Application 09/664,674
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 1.196(b)(2) and 1.197(b), Lance E.
Barsnick et al. request rehearing, i.e., reconsideration, of our
decision on appeal rendered April 30, 2003 (Paper No. 11).
The appeal presented for review the examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 4 through 19 as being
unpatentable over Hill (U.S. Patent No. 3,104,890) in view of
Curran (U.S. Patent No. 3,820,807). We affirmed with respect to
claims 1, 5 and 12 through 14, reversed with respect to claims 4,
6 through 11 and 15 through 19, and designated the affirmance as
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007