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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GERNOT HAUSCH,
CHRISTIAN RADELOFF and GERD RAUSCHER
______________
Appeal No. 1996-3776
Application 08/224,074
_______________
HEARD: March 23, 2000
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 2 through 9 and 11 through 15. The examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection advanced1
on appeal with respect to claims 14 and 15 (answer, page 4), leaving claims 2 through 9 and 11
1See the amendment of April 7, 1994 (Paper No. 12). While the examiner has indicated that claims
14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to include “all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims including claims 12 and 13” (answer, page 4), we observe that claims 14 and 15 are
solely dependent on claim 11 and not on any of the intervening claims. And there is no indication in the
record that appellants will amend the claims to include any of the intervening limitations.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007