Ex Parte GEORGELOS et al - Page 1




               The opinion in support of the decision being entered                   
               today was not written for publication in a law journal                 
               and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PAUL N. GEORGELOS                               
                                         and                                          
                                   PAUL D. TATARKA                                    
                                                                                     
                                Appeal No. 2003-0501                                  
                             Application No. 09/110,455                               
                                                                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                                                                     
          Before KIMLIN, WALTZ and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.               
          KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        



                                REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                 
               Appellants request rehearing of our decision of                        
          March 31, 2003, wherein we affirmed the examiner's rejections of            
          appealed claims 1-7, 9, 11 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and              
          over obviousness-type double patenting.                                     



                                         -1-                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007