Ex Parte Thomas - 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           written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board                         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 HU Q. THOMAS                                          
                                           ____________                                              
                                      Appeal No. 2005-1538                                           
                                   Application No. 09/950,654                                        
                                          _____________                                              
                                             ON BRIEF                                                
                                          _____________                                              
           Before WALTZ, TIMM, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.                           
           FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                    
                                       DECISION ON APPEAL                                            
                 This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final                              
           rejection of claims 1-5, 10-19, and 24-26.  Claims 6-9 are                                
           directed to non-elected species and therefore are not under                               
           consideration in this appeal.  Claims 20-23 have been canceled.                           
           We note that on page 2 of the answer, the examiner includes                               
           claim 23 in the statement of the rejection.  We believe this was                          
           an inadvertent oversight because claim 23 has been canceled.                              
           Brief, page 1.                                                                            
                 Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and                         
           is set forth in the attached Appendix.                                                    
                 The examiner relies upon the following references as                                
           evidence of unpatentability:                                                              
           Jewell et al. (Jewell)  6,524,348 B1  Feb. 25, 2003                                       
           Seltzer          WO 99/05108  Feb.  4, 1999                                               





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007