Ex parte DAO et al. - Page 1




                    THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                       

           The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
           for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                  Paper No. 11         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                      ____________                                     
                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                      ____________                                     
            Ex parte PHUC B. DAO, DOUGLAS S. VANBIBBER and JAMES N. MILLER             
                                      ____________                                     
                                  Appeal No. 1999-0645                                 
                              Application No. 08/799,0561                              
                                      ____________                                     
                                        ON BRIEF                                       
                                      ____________                                     
          Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, ABRAMS                
          and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.                                      
          BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.                                           


                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                  
          rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16, which are all of the claims               
          pending in this application.  In the answer (Paper No. 8), the               
          examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims                 
          1-6, 11-14 and 16 based on the Australian document (answer,                  
          page 3) and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9                

               Application for patent filed February 10, 1997.1                                                                      





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007