Appeal No. 97-2583
Application 08/156,951
We call the examiner’s and the appellants’ attention to
claim 16's dependency from claim 14. It appears from the fact
that claim 15 is the apparatus claim and that claim 16 might
have been intended to depend from claim 15 instead of claim
14. We do not address the issue of an apparatus claim being
dependent from a process claim, since that issue has not been
raised by the examiner and is not presently before us.
REVERSED
RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMESON LEE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007