Ex parte DEMUTH et al. - Page 1

Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte DEMUTH 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                                  publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 42                                 


                                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                        
                                                                _____________                                                                           
                                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                         
                                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                                           
                                                                _____________                                                                           
                                                      Ex parte ROBERT DEMUTH,                                                                           
                                                                  JÜRG FAAS,                                                                            
                                                            PETER FRITZSCHE,                                                                            
                                                                        and                                                                             
                                                                EDUARD NÜSSLI                                                                           
                                                                _____________                                                                           
                                                         Appeal No. 2000-0331                                                                           
                                                   Application No. 08/822,145                                                                           
                                                               ______________                                                                           
                                                      HEARD: NOVEMBER 29, 2001                                                                          
                                                              _______________                                                                           
                 Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and DIXON, Administrative Patent                                                                             
                 Judges.                                                                                                                                
                 HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                 
                                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                           
                          This is an appeal  from the final rejection of claims 811                                                                                              
                 through 91.                                                                                                                            
                          The disclosed invention relates to a controlled cleaning                                                                      


                          1In the parent application, the Board in a decision dated                                                                     
                 January 23, 1997 affirmed the 35 U.S.C. § 112 lack of                                                                                  
                 enablement rejection of claims 54 through 80.                                                                                          





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



Last modified: November  3, 2007