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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LOTFI BENMOHAMED, SUBRAHMANYAM DRAVIDA,
PARAMASIVIAH HARSHAVARDHANA, WING CHEONG LAU
AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0843
Application No. 09/198,728
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not
described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention (lack of
enablement). Claims 1-42 are all of the claims pending in this
application.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007