Ex Parte Proll et al - Page 1



                            The opinion in support of the decision being entered                             
                                today is not binding precedent of the Board.                                 

                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                            
                                               ____________                                                  
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                              
                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                               ____________                                                  
                    Ex parte THEO PROLL, OTTO MACHHAMMER, GOTZ-PETER                                         
                        SCHINDLER, and KLAUS JOACHIM MULLER-ENGEL                                            
                                               ____________                                                  
                                            Appeal 2007-18221                                                
                                          Application 10/482,191                                             
                                          Technology Center 1600                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                         Decided: August 20, 2007                                            
                                               ____________                                                  


                Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and                                                   
                NANCY J. LINCK, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                
                LINCK, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      This is a 35 U.S.C.  134 appeal in the above-referenced case.2                        
                We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We reverse.                                    

                                                                                                            
                1  Heard, August 8, 2007.                                                                    
                2 The application was filed December 29, 2002.  The real party in interest is                
                BASF Aktiengesellschaft.                                                                     



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013