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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BERNARD ROIZMAN and FENYONG LIU
____________
Appeal No. 1996-2639
Application No. 08/176,320
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, ROBINSON, and SPIEGEL, 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's final rejection of claims
6 through 13, 22, 43, 58, 63 and 66 through 71, which are all of the claims pending in this application. 1
Initially, we note that the examiner entered three new grounds of rejection, i..e, (1) of claims 58
and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
1 Notwithstanding entry authorization by the examiner (see answer, page 3), appellants’ request to cancel
claim 23 (see brief, page 1) has not been physically entered in the file record. This clerical processing oversight
should be corrected upon return of the above identified application to the jurisdiction of the examiner.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007