onecle - legal research

Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Ex Parte Kircher et al - Page 1

Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2004 > Ex Parte Kircher et al - Page 1

Sponsored Links



            The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
            Ex parte JOSEPH J. KIRCHER, RONALD W. CZARNY, ROBERT E. LEWIS,            
                       DIAN M. NITZKI-GEORGE and JOE A. MILLER                        
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2004-2032                                 
                              Application No. 09/729,498                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before GARRIS, WARREN, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent               
          Judges.                                                                     
          GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on an appeal from the Examiner’s rejection          
          of claims 1-31 which are all of the claims pending in the above             
          identified application.  On page 2 of the answer, the Examiner has          
          stated that the rejection of claims 6-8, 12, 13, 19-21, 23, 28 and          
          29 has been dropped.  As a consequence, the only claims remaining           
          before us on this appeal are claims 1-5, 9-11, 14-18, 22, 24-27,            
          30 and 31.                                                                  
               The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus and to a          
          method for controlling the operation of a pharmaceutical compounder         





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007