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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HOLGER KNAPPE
____________
Appeal No. 96-2874
Application No. 08/027,849
____________
HEARD: January 12, 2000
____________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2 through 5, 7, 9, 13 and 14. Remaining
claim 6 has not been finally rejected in the final Office
action dated October 11, 1994, Paper No. 7. Nor has it been
rejected in the Answer.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 2):
The [B]rief includes a statement that claims 2-[5,]
7, 13 and 14 do not stand or fall together but fails
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007