Ex Parte VAN DYKE - 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                 publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 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