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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MARKUS ECKERT, GUIDO GIFFELS,
HANS-CHRISTIAN MILITZER and THOMAS PRINZ
____________
Appeal No. 2006-0767
Application No. 09/962,258
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KIMLIN, WALTZ, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s refusal to allow
claims 1 through 3 and 19 through 22 as amended subsequent to the final rejection (see
the amendment dated Aug. 9, 2004, entered as per the Advisory Action dated Aug. 24,
2004; Brief, page 2). Claims 1-3 and 19-22 are the only claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a process for preparing aryl
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007