Ex parte HINNEKENS 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                 (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15                                

                                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                   
                                                              _______________                                                                      

                                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                    
                                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                                                        
                                                              _______________                                                                      

                                                      Ex parte HERVE HINNEKENS                                                                     
                                                          and ANDRE DEMOULIN                                                                       
                                                               ______________                                                                      

                                                            Appeal No. 1997-0436                                                                   
                                                            Application 08/277,692                                                                 
                                                              _______________                                                                      

                                                                   ON BRIEF                                                                        
                                                              _______________                                                                      

                 Before DOWNEY, GARRIS and WARREN, 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 10, which are all of the claims in the application.  Claims 11 and 6 are illustrative of the                     
                 claims on appeal:                                                                                                                 
                 1. A compound suitable for use as a compressor lubricant, comprising an oil prepared by                                           


                                                                                                                                                   
                 1  We have copied claim 1 as it stands of record with the chemical formula as amended in the                                      
                 amendment of August 22, 1995 (Paper No. 10; page 2), from which it is apparent that claim 1 as set                                
                 forth in the appendix to appellants’ brief is in error.                                                                           

                                                                   - 1 -                                                                           



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007