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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WALTER B. MUELLER
______________
Appeal No. 1997-1940
Application 08/396,354
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including the
opposing view of the examiner, in the answer,1 and appellant, in the brief, and based on our review, find
that we cannot sustain either of the rejections of appealed claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8,2 all of the claims in the
application, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description and enablement requirements,
1 The examiner submitted a supplemental examiner’s answer, mailed October 31, 2000 (Paper No.
24) in response to our remand of September 14, 2000 (Paper No. 23).
2 See the amendments of September 5, 1995 (Paper No. 18) and February 18, 1995 (Paper No. 16)
in the present application and the amendment of September 24, 1993 (Paper No. 9) in parent
application 08/396,354. We observe that these two amendments in the present application have not
been properly clerically entered.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007