Ex Parte HAVEMANN - 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                     publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.           
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                              Ex parte ROBERT H. HAVEMANN                             
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2005-0287                                 
                              Application No. 09/216,214                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before OWENS, KRATZ and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This appeal was taken pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the             
          refusal of the examiner to allow claims 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20,           
          22, 24, 26 and 27, which are all of the claims pending in this              
          application.                                                                
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a transistor structure.  An           
          understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of             
          exemplary claims 9 and 10, which are reproduced below.                      







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007