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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KNOX VAN DYKE
__________
Appeal No. 1995-2698
Application 07/660,807
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before Winters, William F. Smith, and Scheiner, Administrative Patent Judges.
William F. Smith, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims
1 through 12, 18 through 20, 26, and 29 through 36, all the claims remaining in
the application.
Our review of this case resulted in the discovery of a number of
procedural errors on the part of the examiner which would normally preclude us
from reaching a decision on the merits. However, our review has also led to the
discovery of a particularly egregious substantive error on the part of the
examiner. As a consequence, we will only outline the procedural errors we have
uncovered and proceed to a decision on the merits.
Procedural Errors
Statements of Rejections
There are two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in the Examiner’s
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007