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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RICHARD L. ROETKEN, WILLIAM J. ROY
and NINEV KARL ZIA
__________
Appeal No. 2001-1302
Application 08/811,230
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FRANKFORT, PATE, and STAAB, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection
of claims 1 through 3, which are all of the claims pending in
this application.1
1 This is the second time we have seen this application on
appeal. In our prior opinion in Appeal No. 1999-1768 (Paper No.
8, mailed March 30, 2000) we affirmed the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 3, as they existed at that time, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, although on a somewhat different basis than urged by the
examiner.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007