Ex parte HAUSCH et al. - 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                                           (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 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