Ex Parte Pinteric 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               written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 16           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    ____________                                      
               Ex parte FRANK WALTER PINTERIC and MICHAEL ALAN MAIERS                 
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 2004-0653                                  
                             Application No. 09/872,053                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      
          Before COHEN, FRANKFORT, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.            
          FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                     


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   

          This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                      
          rejection of claims 1, 2, 13 and 18 through 34, which are all of            
          the claims remaining in this application.  Claims 3 through 12              
          and 14 through 17 have been canceled.                                       


          Appellants' invention is directed to a "system" or "disc                    
          drive" that is capable of connecting a 2.5 inch form factor disc            
          drive in a computer environment that is configured to receive a             
          3.5 inch form factor disc drive.  More particularly, the claims             
          on appeal are directed to a 2.5 inch form factor disc drive                 






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007