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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DONALD W. KUFE, and RALPH R. WEICHSELBAUM
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0690
Application No. 08/309,315
__________
ON BRIEF1
__________
Before ROBINSON, ADAMS, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 7, 9, 12-14 and 22-24, which are all the
claims pending in the application.3
1 Pursuant to appellants request (Paper No. 26, received February 26, 1998) an oral
hearing for this appeal was scheduled (Paper No. 27, mailed April 18, 2001) for
Tuesday, September 11, 2001. However, we note appellants waived (Paper No. 28,
received May 9, 2001) their request for oral hearing. Accordingly, we considered this
appeal on Brief.
2 We note appellants’ statement, in Appeal No. 1999-1353 (Application No. 08/520,923),
that the instant appeal is related to Appeal No. 1999-1353 and Appeal No. 1999-1475
(Application No. 08/248,058). Accordingly, these appeals were considered together.
3 Appellants’ After Final amendment (Paper No. 20, received 3/19/97), inter alia,
cancelled claims 1-6, 10, 11 and 15-21. The examiner’s Advisory Action (Paper No. 21,
mailed April 7, 1997) approved entry of this amendment. The administrative file,
however, does not indicate that these claims were cancelled. Prior to any further action,
the examiner should insure that the administrative accurately reflects the correct status
of the claims.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007