Ex Parte Cuthbertson et al - 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                             for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 ALAN CUTHBERTSON, BARD INDREVOLL,                                          
                 MAGNE SOLBAKKEN, TORGRIM ENGELL, MILL COLIN ARCHER,                                         
                                   and HARRY JOHN WADSWORTH                                                  
                                                __________                                                   
                                             Appeal 2007-1140                                                
                                          Application 10/753,729                                             
                                         Technology Center 1600                                              
                                                __________                                                   
                                                ON BRIEF                                                     
                                                __________                                                   
                Before MILLS, GREEN, and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                             
                LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      Claims 1-11, 13-18, 20, and 22 are on appeal.  We have jurisdiction                    
                under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm the rejection under  103, but because                    
                our reasoning differs from the Examiner, we designate it as a new ground of                  
                rejection.  We vacate the obvious-type double-patenting rejection and                        
                remand to the Examiner for further consideration.                                            

                                         STATEMENT OF CASE                                                   




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013