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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ODD STEIJER, CHRISTER MOLL, BENGT LINDSTROM,
CHRISTIAN VIEIDER, PAUL ERIKSEN, JAN-AKE ENGSTRAND,
OLLE LARSSON and HAKAN ELDERSTIG
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0887
Application No. 08/848,238
____________
HEARD: December 12, 2001
____________
Before BARRETT, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, 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 1-17 and 20-31 .1
Claims 18 and 19 have been indicated to be allowable if
written in independent form.
1The rejection of claims 2 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment (Paper
No. 15, filed May 6, 1999) filed subsequent to the final rejection (answer,
page 2).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007