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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 36
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RICHARD D. DIMARCHI,
ROGER G. HARRISON, and RONALD K. WOLFF
__________
Appeal No. 2004-0250
Application No. 09/226,412
__________
ON BRIEF1
__________
Before WINTERS and WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges, and
McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final rejection of
claims 30 through 67. Subsequently, claims 33 and 47 were canceled, leaving claims
30 through 32, 34 through 46, and 48 through 67 for our consideration on appeal.
1 Appellants requested an oral hearing in conjunction with this appeal (Paper
No. 33, June 20, 2003). However, for reasons developed infra, the merits panel has
decided that an oral hearing at this time would not be an appropriate use of appellants’
and the agency’s resources. Accordingly, we decide this appeal on brief. 37 CFR §
1.194(c)(“If the Board decides that a hearing is not necessary, the Board will so notify
appellant.”). This opinion also contains new grounds of rejection under 37 CFR §
1.196(b). If appellants elect to proceed under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(2), they may request
that an oral hearing be held in conjunction with the request for rehearing.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007