Ex Parte Llorin et al. - Page 1


                         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                                for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23                 

                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                            
                                                __________                                                  
                            BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                              
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                                __________                                                  
                                        Ex parte OSCAR J. LLORIN,                                           
                                          MATTHEW P. COLLIS,                                                
                                         MICHAEL C. LITTLE, and                                             
                                            JAMES M. HARRIS                                                 
                                                __________                                                  
                                          Appeal No.   2002-0780                                            
                                        Application No.  09/128,340                                         
                                                __________                                                  
                                                 ON BRIEF                                                   
                                                __________                                                  
               Before, ADAMS, MILLS and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.                                
               ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                                VACATUR and REMAND TO THE EXAMINER                                          

                      On consideration of the record we find this case is not in condition for a            
               decision on appeal.  For the reasons that follow, we vacate1 the pending rejection           
               under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and remand the application to the examiner to consider                 
               the following issues and to take appropriate action.                                         




                                                                                                            
               1 Lest there be any misunderstanding, the term “vacate” in this context means to set aside or to
               void.  When the Board vacates an examiner’s rejection, the rejection is set aside and no longer
               exists.  Ex parte Zambrano, 58 USPQ2d 1312, 1313 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001).                






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007