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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DAVID TERRELL
STEFAAN DE MEUTTER and BERND KALETTA
______________
Appeal No. 1997-0006
Application 08/409,946
_______________
HEARD: February 22, 2000
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 19, which were all of the claims in the application. Subsequent to
the final rejection, appellants cancelled claims 2, 3 and 10, amended claim 18, and submitted new claim
20. The examiner has held claims 20 and 11 to be allowable. Thus, claims 1, 4 through 9 and 141
through 19 remain for our consideration on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1Amendments of June 7, 1996 (Paper No. 13) and September 3, 1996 (Paper No. 15).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007