Ex Parte Hubbell - Page 1




               The opinion in support of the decision being entered                   
               today was not written for publication in a law journal                 
               and is not binding precedent of the Board.                             
                                                               Paper No. 21           

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                                                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                                                                     
                            Ex parte D. STERLING HUBBELL                              
                                                                                     
                                Appeal No. 2003-1067                                  
                             Application No. 09/775,662                               
                                                                                     
                              HEARD:  November 5, 2003                                
                                                                                     
          Before KIMLIN, OWENS and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        


                                REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                 
               Appellant requests rehearing of our decision of December 8,            
          2003, wherein we affirmed the examiner's rejection of the                   
          appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                      
               We have thoroughly reviewed the arguments presented in                 
          appellant's request, but we find nothing therein that persuades             
          us that our decision was in error.                                          
               Appellant maintains that we overlooked the separate                    
          arguments for claims 17, 18, 22, 27, 28 and 32.  This is not so.            

                                         -1-                                          




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007