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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 ARIE HENDRIK FRANS VAN VLIET
and SEBASTIAN MARTINUS PETERS
______________
Appeal No. 2004-1950
Application 09/352,612
_______________
HEARD: December 8, 2004
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 16 through 18 and refusing to allow claims 1 through 7, 13 through 15 and 19
through 23 as amended subsequent to the final rejection. Claims 9 through 12 are also of record
and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).1
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 16 illustrate appellants’ invention of a grid of drawn polymeric strips
comprising at least two spatially separated bonding points or lines in at least one zone of overlap,
and are representative of the claims on appeal:
1 Appellants take issue with the examiner’s requirement for restriction (brief, pages 20-21).
This matter is petitionable and thus, not before us. 37 CFR §§ 1.143 and 1.144 (2003). See In re
Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 233, 14 USPQ2d 1407, 1409-10 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Hengehold,
440 F.2d 1395, 1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007