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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 55
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL L. LUBIN, SETON P. KASMIR, KATHRYN A. KUBASAK,
GREGORY A. HEIN, SURENDRA B. MANDAVA, CHANCHAI POONPOL, SHAHIN
HEDAYAT, and DONALD W. BURTIS
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2028
Application No. 08/769,036
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 67 through 69, 71, 73 through 82, 88
through 93, and 95. Claims 70 and 94 have been indicated as
being allowable.1
1The examiner states under the heading "Status of Claims" that claims
83, 84, 86, and 87 are allowed, but then includes claims 83, 84, and 87 in the
statement and discussion of the rejection. We assume from the prosecution
history that claims 83, 84, 86, and 87 contain allowable subject matter, that
claims 83, 84, and 87 were inadvertently included in the rejection, and that
none of claims 83, 84, 86, and 87 are before us on appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007