Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Ex Parte STRAUSS et al - Page 1

Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2002 > Ex Parte STRAUSS 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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. 20              
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                     Ex parte DAVID P. STRAUSS, THOMAS J. HUNT,                       
                                 and PAUL S. GILMAN                                   
                            ___________                                               
                                Appeal No. 2001-1776                                  
                             Application No. 08/881,948                               
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                      _________                                       

          Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                          
               This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final              
          rejection of claims 9 through 13, 23 and 24, which are the only             
          claims remaining in this application.  We have jurisdiction                 
          pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.                                                
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a one-           
          piece target, i.e., a single homogenous piece of sputtering                 
          material, with threaded holes proximate to its periphery so that            
          the target may be bolted to the interior of the chamber with                





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007