The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ARMELLE BONFILS and DANIEL PHILIBERT
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2138
Application 08/403,2761
____________
ON BRIEF2
____________
Before: WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, McKELVEY, Senior
Administrative Patent Judge, and NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
This appeal is from a decision of a primary examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5.
Claim 6 has been withdrawn from consideration. We reverse.
1 Application for patent filed March 13, 1995. Appellants claim priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to April 1,
1994, based on an application filed in France. The real party in interest is Roussel Uclaf, of Paris, France. (Brief,
Paper No. 18, at 1.)
2 Appellants, through counsel, requested an oral hearing. (Paper No. 20, filed May 6, 1998.) Our review
of the case revealed that a hearing was not necessary to assist us in the resolution of the issues on appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007