Ex parte XIE 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                   publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.             

                                                            Paper No. 11              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                               Ex parte CHENGGANG XIE                                 
                                        and                                           
                                   DEAN J. EICHMAN                                    
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1998-1746                                  
                             Application No. 08/427,462                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before CAROFF, KIMLIN, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          CAROFF, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This decision on appeal relates to the final rejection of              
          claims 1-13.  Claims 14-21, all the other pending claims in                 
          appellants' application, stand withdrawn from consideration as              
          being drawn to a non-elected invention pursuant to a                        
          restriction requirement (Paper No. 3).  Therefore, claims 14-               
          21 are not before us for consideration.                                     
               The claims on appeal relate to a surface texturing                     





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007