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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DONALD B. FETTERMAN and STEPHEN W. SMITH
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1192
Application No. 09/691,631
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8 and 9. The remaining
claims in this application are claims 4 and 10, and the examiner
has indicated that claim 10 is allowable while claim 4 is objected
to as allowable but dependent upon rejected base claim 1 (Answer,
page 2, ¶(3)). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellants, the invention is directed an
increased capacity railway car including a first end, a second end,
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007