Ex Parte Hoyt 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            written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MATTHEW B. HOYT, BOBBY J. BAILEY,                     
                                STANLEY A. MCINTOSH,                                
                        PHILLIP E. WILSON, and GARY W. SHORE                        
         _____________                                                              
                                Appeal No. 2006-0941                                
                             Application No. 10/059,364                             
                                  ______________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                      
                                  _______________                                   
         Before PAK, OWENS, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges              
         OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                               REMAND TO THE EXAMINER                               
              The appellants’ claim 20, which is the sole independent               
         claim, recites that the nylon core polymer has “an amine end               
         group (AEG) content of between about 10 meq/kg which is                    
         susceptible to dyeing ...”.  The other end point of the amine end          
         group content is not recited.                                              
              We therefore remand the application to the examiner for the           
         examiner to consider rejecting claim 20 as being indefinite under          
         35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.                                         

                                         1                                          




Page:  1  2  3  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007