Ex Parte Gaiser 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         not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the            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. 13             
                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                    __________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                         
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                    __________                                      
                       Ex parte RANDALL R. GAISER, XILUO ZHU                        
         and ROBERTO BUENO NIGRO                                                    
                                    __________                                      
                               Appeal No. 2004-1811                                 
                               Application 10/253,785                               
                                    ___________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                      
                                    ___________                                     
         Before COHEN, FRANKFORT, and STAAB, 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 and 2, the only claims pending in this               
         application.                                                               

         As noted on page 1 of the specification, an object of                      
         appellants’ invention is to provide an improved diesel engine              
         piston that can perform satisfactorily under the increased                 
                                         1                                          




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007