Ex Parte Fokken 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                             for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 STEFAN FOKKEN and WALTHER REITH                                          
                                             Appeal 2007-1565                                                
                                          Application 10/682,951                                             
                                         Technology Center 1700                                              
                                         DECIDED: May 16, 2007                                               

                Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and                                                    
                RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                           
                LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       
                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5.  We               
                have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm.                                        

                                         STATEMENT OF CASE                                                   
                      The claimed invention relates to a composition for stabilizing halogen                 
                containing polymers (Specification 3).  Claims 1-5, all the pending claims,                  
                stand rejected over prior art (Br. 1).  The Examiner relies on the following                 
                evidence of unpatentability:                                                                 

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013