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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ROBERT HASELKORN,
WILLIAM J. BUIKEMA, and
CHRISTOPHER C. BAUER
__________
Appeal No. 2001-1842
Application No. 08/684,005
__________
HEARD: July 9, 2002
__________
Before WINTERS, SCHEINER, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 81-85, 87-104 and 106-1301, which are all the
claims pending in the application.
1 As appellants’ state (Brief, page 1), claims 86 and 105 were canceled in an Amendment filed
concurrently with the Brief. This amendment was entered. Answer, page 2. Accordingly, claims
87 and 106, which depend from claims 86 and 105 respectively now depend from canceled
claims. For the purposes of this appeal we have treated claims 87 and 106 as if they depend
from claims 1 and 103 respectively. Upon further prosecution of the claims in this application, we
encourage the examiner and appellants to work together to correct this claim dependency issue.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007