Ex Parte Lojek 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                          for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 BOHUMIL LOJEK and                                              
                                             PHILIP O. SMITH                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-1274                                                 
                                          Application 10/850,897                                              
                                          Technology Center 2800                                              
                                          Decided: April 30, 2007                                             

                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and CHUNG K.                                      
                PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                            
                PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                             

                               ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER                                                
                                   PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.  41.50(a)                                           
                      On this record, we determine that this case is not ripe for meaningful                  
                review and is, therefore, remanded to the Examiner for appropriate action                     
                not inconsistent with the instruction set forth below.                                        
                      At pages 3 through 5 of the Answer, the Examiner set forth, inter alia,                 
                the following rejection:                                                                      

Page:  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013