Ex Parte Davis et al - Page 1

                          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                               
                                     is not binding precedent of the Board.                                        

                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                 
                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                  
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                       
                        Ex parte JAMES HAROLD DAVIS, NEZAM MALAKOUTI,                                              
                                        and TERRILL ALAN YOUNG                                                     
                                               Appeal 2006-0828                                                    
                                            Application 10/252,175                                                 
                                            Technology Center 1700                                                 
                                         Decided:  September 21, 2007                                              
                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS,                                                        
                and CHUNG K. PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                    
                KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               

                                DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                                  
                       Appellants request rehearing of our Decision of March 9, 2006,                              
                wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16,                        
                18-21, 23, 24, 26-31, and 33-39 under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as being                                  
                unpatentable over Allen in view of Kobylivker.                                                     
                       Appellants assert that we misapprehended and overlooked the                                 
                limitation of claim 1 which recites that “the second molten stream comprises                       

Page:  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013