Ex Parte Fichtner 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                                   is not binding precedent of the Board.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 SIEGFRIED FICHTNER, JURGEN HOFMANN,                                         
                              KARL MUSSIG, AND DANIEL VERHOEVEN                                               
                                             Appeal 2006-2534                                                 
                                           Application 10/789,411                                             
                                          Technology Center 2800                                              
                                          Decided: August 9, 2007                                             
                Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,                                               
                MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and                                                    
                JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                 
                SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                              DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                               
                      Appellants request reconsideration of our Decision of                                   
                January 31, 2007, wherein we sustained the Examiner’s rejection of the                        
                appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                                     
                      We have carefully considered the arguments presented by Appellants                      
                in the Request and reviewed our decision.  However, those arguments do not                    

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013