Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Ex parte SAMPATH et al. - Page 1

Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte SAMPATH et al. - Page 1

          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                   publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 11             


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                    _____________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                    
                              Ex parte SANJAY SAMPATH                                
                                        and                                          
                                 JACK E. VANDERPOOL                                  
                                    _____________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1999-2173                                 
                             Application No. 08/865,952                              
                                   ______________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                       
                                   _______________                                   
          Before OWENS, WALTZ, and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                    
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
          This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                      
          from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 9, 13,             
          14, 16 through 18, and 21, which are the only claims remaining             
          in this application (Brief, page 2).                                       
              According to appellants, the invention is directed to a                
          composite powder for thermal spray applications where the                  







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007