Ex Parte Levine - 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                                 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20         

                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                             
                                               ____________                                                   

                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                               
                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                                  ____________                                                
                                          Ex parte MATTHEW LEVINE                                             
                                                 ____________                                                 
                                             Appeal No. 2004-0609                                             
                                           Application No. 09/900,787                                         

                                                 ____________                                                 
                                                   ON BRIEF                                                   
                                                 ____________                                                 
            Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.                              
            HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                            



                                            DECISION ON APPEAL                                                
                   This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 14 and        
            16.  Claims 91 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but           
            would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the       
            base claims and any intervening claims.                                                           



                   1 Claim 16 depends from objected to claim 9.                                               





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007