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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JAN VANDENBERK, LUDO E.J. KENNIS
and ALBERTUS H.M.T. VAN HEERTUM
______________
Appeal No. 1997-3186
Application 08/362,529
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1, 2, 6 and 11 through 29. Subsequent to the final rejection, appellants canceled claims 26
through 29 and added claims 30 through 33,1,2 of which the examiner has rejected claims 30 and 33
and allowed claims 31 and 32. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 6, 11 through 25, 30 and 33 are before us in
1 Amendment of April 24, 1996 (Paper No. 9) which was entered by the examiner in the advisory
action of May 16, 1996 (Paper No. 10).
2 The examiner observes error in the copy of claim 2 in the appendix to the brief (answer, page 3). We
leave the matter of the appropriate terminology for a fluorobenzyl group (id.) to the examiner for
resolution subsequent to this appeal as resolution here is not necessary to our decision.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007