Ex Parte Valesky et al - 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               and is not binding precedent of the Board.                             

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                                                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                                                                     
                             Ex parte ROBERT J. VALESKY,                              
                       STEPHEN F. GROSS and TIMOTHY C. MORRIS                         
                                                                                     
                                Appeal No. 2004-1814                                  
                             Application No. 09/950,969                               
                                                                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                                                                     
          Before KIMLIN, WALTZ and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.                
          KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                                REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                 
               Appellants request rehearing and reconsideration of our                
          decision of September 27, 2004, wherein we affirmed the                     
          examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C.  103 of the appealed                 
          claims.                                                                     
          As stated at page 5 of our decision, "[a]lthough appellants                 
          may establish nonobviousness by proffering objective evidence of            
          nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, the examiner                    
          correctly points out that no such evidence has been presented by            

                                         -1-                                          



Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007