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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PAUL C. ANDERSON, PAUL S. CHOMET,
MATTHEW C. GRIFFOR, and ALAN L. KRIZ
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0102
Application No. 09/732,439
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before SCHEINER, ADAMS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request reconsideration (Request) of the Board’s decision
entered August 31, 2006 (Decision), wherein the rejection of claim 59 under the
written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph was affirmed.1
Claims 60-63, 72, and 73 fell together with claim 59. Appellants present two
arguments for our consideration. We take each in turn.
1 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, § 102(e), and § 103 were reversed.
Having disposed of all claims under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, we did not reach the rejection under the enablement provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013