The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JURGEN ROMISCH, ERIC-PAUL PAQUES,
ROBERT BARTLETT and
GERHARD DICKNEITE
____________
Appeal No. 1996-2216
Application No. 08/087,0581
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SPIEGEL, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner finally
rejecting claims 7 through 9 and refusing to allow claims 1, 3 and 5 as amended
2
subsequent to the final rejection, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative and read as follows.
Application for patent filed July 7, 1993.1
The amendment filed January 13, 1995 (Paper No. 10) amending claims 1, 3 and 5 was entered2
by the examiner in the advisory action mailed February 1, 1995 (Paper No. 11).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007