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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LEONARDUS F. P. WARMERDAM and HENDRIK BOEZEN
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0142
Application No. 08/705,569
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The examiner rejected the appellants’ claims 1-10, 14,
15, and 18-22. They appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C.1
§ 134(a). We affirm-in-part.
1The appellants reason that claim 17 “is nowhere discussed
in the Final Rejection and so it must be allowable on the
present record since there is no factual support for any art
rejection thereof.” (Appeal Br. at 18.) The examiner states,
“[t]he statement of the status of the claims in the brief is
correct.” (Examiner’s Answer at 2.)
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007