The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JEAN A. SETTERSTROM, THOMAS R. TICE,
ELLIOT JACOB, JOHN VAN HAMONT, EDGAR C. BOEDEKER,
RAMASUBBU JEYANTHI, PHIL FRIDEN, F. DONALD ROBERTS, CHARLES E.
MCQUEN, APURBA BHATTACHARJEF, ALAN CROSS, JERALD SADOFF
and WENDELL ZOLLINGER
__________
Appeal No. 2001-1733
Application No. 09/055,505
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WINTERS, ADAMS and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
After considering the record, we have concluded that this case is not in condition
for a decision on appeal. For the reasons that follow we vacate the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and remand the application to the examiner for further action
consistent with the views expressed herein.1
1 Lest there be any confusion, when the board vacates an examiner’s rejection, the rejection ceases to
exist. See Ex parte Zambrano, 58 USPQ2d 1312 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007