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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PHUC B. DAO, DOUGLAS S. VANBIBBER and JAMES N. MILLER
____________
Appeal No. 1999-0645
Application No. 08/799,0561
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, ABRAMS
and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-16, which are all of the claims
pending in this application. In the answer (Paper No. 8), the
examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1-6, 11-14 and 16 based on the Australian document (answer,
page 3) and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9
Application for patent filed February 10, 1997.1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007