Ex Parte JESCHKE 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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. 25              


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                              Ex parte MICHAEL JESCHKE                                
                                         and                                          
                                   IVAR MORTENSEN                                     
                                   _______________                                    
                                Appeal No. 2002-2106                                  
                             Application No. 09/313,359                               
                                   _______________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
                    This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection             
          of claims 1 through 4, 7, 9 and 10.  Claims 5, 6, and 8 are                 
          objected to for being dependent upon a rejected claim.                      



                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007