Ex parte MICHAEL J. MCGEARY, et al. - Page 1





                    THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                      
             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today               
          (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and                    
          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                  
                                                            Paper No. 15              
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                             Ex parte MICHAEL J. McGEARY                              
                                and HERMAN J. BOEGLIN                                 
                                   ______________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 94-3976                                   
                               Application 07/891,4841                                
                                   _______________                                    
                                HEARD: April 7, 1997                                  
                                   _______________                                    
          Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS2 and WARREN, Administrative Patent             
          Judges.                                                                     
          WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                                 Decision on Appeal                                   
               We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appealed claims 1               
          through 8 under 35 U.S.C. '  103 as being unpatentable over                 
          Ghandhi or Wolf taken with either Morris or Ellingboe.  We agree            
          with appellants that one of ordinary skill would not have been              
          motivated by Morris (oxalyl chloride is selected over HCl as a              
          “chloride-containing substance” used for simultaneous “removal of           
          a majority of the molybdenum and chloriding of the alumina-                 
                                                                                     
          1  Application for patent filed May 29, 1992.                               
          2 Judge McFarlane, who participated in the oral hearing, has                
          resigned from the Board. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  7, Judge Garris            
          has been designated as a substitute to decide this appeal. Cf. In           


                                     - 1 -                                            



Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007