Ex parte SCHMIDT - Page 1




                                                       Paper No. 19                   

               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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                  

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                               Ex parte KLAUS SCHMIDT                                 
                                   ______________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 97-0894                                   
                              Application 08/069,931 1                                
                                   _______________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    
          Before THOMAS, FLEMING and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges .          
          THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge .                                       
                                                                                     
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s                
          final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10, after having                   
          canceled claim 2.  The examiner has objected to claims 5, 6, 8              
          and 9, but page 2 of the final rejection indicates that they                
          would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all           
          the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.               

               Application for patent filed May 28, 1993.1                                                                     
                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007