Ex Parte Ampulski - Page 1




              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was          
              not written for publication and is not precedent of the Board.          
                                                             Paper No. 19             
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    ____________                                      

                          Ex parte ROBERT STANLEY AMPULSKI                            
                                    ____________                                      

                                Appeal No. 2003-0814                                  
                             Application No. 09/888,756                               
                                                                                     
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      

          Before WARREN, DELMENDO and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   

                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the            
          examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-17.                        
               On page 2 do the brief, appellant states that the claims               
          stand and fall together.  We therefore consider claim 1 in this             
          appeal.  See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7 and 8)(2000).                              











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

Last modified: November 3, 2007