Ex Parte SONTAG - 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          was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not             
          binding precedent of the Board.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. 22              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                              Ex parte CHRISTOPH SONTAG                               
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 1999-0107                                  
                               Application 08/700,427                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       

          Before CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge, MCCANDLISH, Senior             
          Administrative Patent Judge, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent             
          Judge.                                                                      
          MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               Christoph Sontag originally took this appeal from the final            
          rejection of claims 1 through 16, 18 and 19.  The appellant has             
          since canceled claims 16, 18 and 19, and amended claim 1.  Thus,            
          the appeal now involves claims 1 through 15, all of the claims              
          currently pending in the application.                                       

                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007