Ex Parte LUNDAHL - 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                                     is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DAVE B. LUNDAHL                                                   
                                               Appeal 2006-1417                                                    
                                            Application 09/326,405                                                 
                                            Technology Center 3600                                                 
                                         Decided:  September 21, 2007                                              
                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and                                                    
                CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                   
                KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               

                                DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                                  
                       Appellant requests rehearing of our Decision of October 27, 2006,                           
                wherein we sustained the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11-13 under                          
                35 U.S.C.  103(a).                                                                                
                       We have thoroughly reviewed Appellant’s Request but we do not                               
                subscribe to Appellant’s position that we misapprehended or overlooked the                         
                points made in the Request.  In our view, the arguments made by Appellant                          


Page:  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013