Ex Parte DEBOER 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31         

                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                      ____________                                     
                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                      ____________                                     
             Ex parte SCOTT J. DEBOER, HUSAM AL-SHAREEF and RANDHIR THAKUR             
                                      ____________                                     
                                  Appeal No. 2002-1167                                 
                               Application No. 09/089,445                              
                                      ____________                                     
                                        ON BRIEF                                       
                                      ____________                                     
          Before OWENS, TIMM, and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.               
          OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                          


                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 4-16, 18,             
          21-25, 27-29 and 36-39, and refusal to allow claims 17 and 30-35             
          as amended after final rejection.  These are all of the claims               
          remaining in the application.                                                
                                     THE INVENTION                                     
               The appellants claim a double sided lower electrode capacitor.          
          Claim 4 is illustrative:                                                     










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

Last modified: November 3, 2007