Ex Parte Romanski 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                      for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 ERIC ROMANSKI, CRAYTON GREGORY TONEY,                            
                      JOSEPH G. O’CONNOR, and MAURICE R. PAQUIN                              
                                        ____________                                         
                                      Appeal 2006-2035                                       
                                    Application 09/923,936                                   
                                    Technology Center 3600                                   
                                        ____________                                         
                                   Decided: March 16, 2007                                   
                                        ____________                                         

             Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and ANTON W.                        
             FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.                                          
             OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                             

                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                        
                   The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-3.  Claim 4 stands     
             objected to as dependent from a rejected claim but allowable if rewritten in    
             independent form.  Claims 5-13 stand withdrawn from consideration by the        
             Examiner as claiming a nonelected invention.                                    






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013