The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte LARRY D. KINSMAN, JERRY M. BROOKS, WARREN M. FARNWORTH, WALTER L. MODEN and TERRY R. LEE ____________ Appeal No. 2005-1398 Application No. 10/202,359 ____________ ON BRIEF ____________ Before FRANKFORT, NASE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 7 and 8, as amended subsequent to the final rejection. According to the examiner’s answer (page 3), claims 4-6 and 9-17, the only other claims pending in this application, stand allowed. The obviousness-type double patenting rejection set forth in the final rejection has apparently been withdrawn,1 as it has not been re-stated in the answer. 1 The record appears to indicate that this rejection was overcome by the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer on September 2, 2003.Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007