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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MICHAEL L. BEIGEL, NATHANIEL POLISH,
STEVEN R. FRANK and ROBERT E. MALM
__________
Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request that we reconsider that portion of our
decision of June 27, 2005 wherein we sustained the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 36 and 39 based on the
Buchele reference, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 70,
71, and 75 based on the Carroll reference, and the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 47 and 56-60 based on the Carroll
reference.
Initially, with respect to claim 36, we find ourselves in
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007