Ex Parte Kinsman 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                                  for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                   



                             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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007