Ex Parte Hoskins 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          was not written for publication and is not binding precedent                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. 20              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                            Ex parte EDWARD SEAN HOSKINS                              
                                         and                                          
                                FRANCIS T. SEUBERLING                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2004-0292                                  
                               Application 09/726,369                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       
          Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent                 
          Judges.                                                                     
          THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s              
          final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 16, the examiner having               
          indicated the allowability of claims 8 through 15 and an                    
          objection to claims 3 and 5 through 7.                                      

                                          1                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007