The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 60
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HUGO KATUS, ANNELIESE BORGYA,
KLAUS HALLERMAYER, and SIEGRIED LOOSER
__________
Appeal No. 1999-1368
Application 08/487,540
__________
HEARD: July 24, 2001
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, MILLS and GRIMES Administrative Patent Judges.
WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10, 11, 13 through 15, 20 through 22 and 24 through 31.
Subsequently, appellants canceled claim 25 and added claim 32. The examiner
indicated at page 1 of the Examiner’s Answer that claims 13-15 were allowed.1 This
leaves claims 1 through 8, 10, 11, 20 through 22, 24, and 26 through 32 for our review.
1 Appellants filed an amendment on October 23, 2000 canceling claims 13-15. Upon return of the
application, the examiner should review the amendment and take appropriate action. We also note that
Application No. 09/505,854 has been filed which is stated to be a division of this application. The
examiner should review the new application and determine whether double patenting issues exist.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007