Ex parte GATES 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opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not           
                  binding precedent of the Board.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. 18                   
                                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                          
                                                                   _____________                                                                           

                                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                          
                                                             AND INTERFERENCES                                                                             
                                                                   _____________                                                                           

                                           Ex parte RICHARD S. GATES and STEPHEN M. HSU                                                                    
                                                                   _____________                                                                           

                                                               Appeal No. 1997-1538                                                                        
                                                              Application 08/184,1721                                                                      
                                                                   _____________                                                                           

                                                                      ON BRIEF                                                                             
                                                                   _____________                                                                           

                  Before SCHAFER, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                           

                  SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                    

                                                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER                                                                               
                                                  Decision on Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                                                                 

                           This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 13-27.  The examiner asserts the following                                 
                  grounds of  rejection (Examiner’s Answer, Paper 12, p. 2):2                                                                              
                           1.                Claims 13 and 16-22 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, “for                                       
                                             failing to provide support in the specification”; and                                                         


                     11Application for patent filed January 19, 1994.                                                                                     
                     22Additional grounds of rejection were made in the final rejection (Paper 7).  These rejections are deemed                           
                  withdrawn in view of the failure to repeat them in the examiner’s answer.                                                                
                                                                            1                                                                              





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007