Ex Parte Howes 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                      written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 RONALD BRUCE HOWES, JR.,                                            
                           ROBERT EUGENE MAY, and DAVID HOWLAND                                               
                                             Appeal 2007-2046                                                 
                                           Application 10/328,497                                             
                                          Technology Center 1700                                              
                                           Decided:  June 8, 2007                                             
                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and                                                    
                JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.                                               
                KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                               ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER                                                
                      Appellants state that “[t]his is an appeal from the final rejection of                  
                claims 17-25 and 28-36 (Br. 1).  The Examiner, however, states at page 2 of                   
                the Answer that “the status of the claims is as follows:  claims 18, 24-25 and                
                28-36 are objected” (Answer, third para.), and that “[t]here is an objection to               
                both the specification and claims 18, 21, 23-25 and 28-36 . . . [which]                       


Page:  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013