Ex Parte MOLLET 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                                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 41                
                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                     
                                                   __________                                                          

                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                       
                                             AND INTERFERENCES                                                         
                                                    __________                                                         
                            Ex parte BEAT MOLLET, JOHN PEEL, DAVID PRIDMORE,                                           
                                         NADJI REKHIF and BRUNO SURI                                                   
                                                    __________                                                         
                                               Appeal No. 2002-1926                                                    
                                             Application No. 08/693,3531                                               
                                                    __________                                                         
                                              HEARD: March 6, 2003                                                     
                                                    __________                                                         
              Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.                               
              SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                   
                                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                                       
                     This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 23-26,                 
              28, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42-47 and 51-54.2                                                                
                     Claims 23, 24, 36, 42, 45 and 46 are representative of the subject matter on                      


                     1 Application for patent filed August 6, 1996.                                                    
                     2 Claims 23-54 are pending in the application.  Claims 23-47 and 51-54 were                       
              finally rejected in paper no. 13, while claims 48-50 were withdrawn from consideration                   
              as drawn to non-elected subject matter.  An Advisory Action (paper no. 18), mailed May                   
              11, 1998, indicated that claims 23-26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42-47 and 51-54 were                  
              still rejected, but claims 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 and 41 were merely objected to as                  
              dependent on a rejected base claim.  In the examiner’s most recent Advisory Action                       
              (paper no. 23) mailed August 17, 1998, the status of the claims was as follows: claims                   
              23-26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and 51-54 stood finally rejected; claims 27, 29, 31,               
              33, 35, 39 and 41 were objected to as depending from a rejected base claim; claims 43-                   
              47 were not addressed.  According to the examiner’s Answer (paper no. 27), claims 43-                    
              47 still stand rejected, but claim 34 does not.  Claim 37 is not addressed in the most                   
              recent Advisory, nor in the Answer.                                                                      


Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007