Ex Parte DiTroia - 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                                  for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22            
                             UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                         
                                                 ____________                                                  
                                  BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                           
                                             AND INTERFERENCES                                                 
                                                 ____________                                                  
                                           Ex parte GARY W. DiTROIA                                            
                                                 ____________                                                  
                                             Appeal No. 2004-2024                                              
                                           Application No. 10/138,716                                          
                                                 ____________                                                  
                                                   ON BRIEF                                                    
                                          REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                                
                                                 ____________                                                  
             Before ABRAMS, McQUADE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.                                   
             ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                              



                   This case comes before us on request for rehearing of our decision of September             
             9, 2004, wherein we affirmed the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10, 17, 20, 22, 23             
             and 25.                                                                                           
                   While we have considered the arguments set out by the appellant, we have                    
             decided not to modify our decision, and therefore the Request for Rehearing is                    
             DENIED.                                                                                           










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

Last modified: November 3, 2007