Ex parte NILSSEN - 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                     not binding precedent of the Board.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 OLE K. NILSSEN                                                                                              
                                                                                __________                                                                                             
                                                                     Appeal No. 1997-2289                                                                                              
                                                                   Application 08/395,691                                                                                              
                                                                               ___________                                                                                             
                                                                                  ON BRIEF                                                                                             
                                                                               ___________                                                                                             
                     Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and LALL, Administrative Patent                                                                                                      
                     Judges.                                                                                                                                                           
                     LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                                                

                                                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                                             
                                This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from                                                                                                
                     the final rejection  of claims 1 to 19, which constitute all1                                                                                                                        

                                1 An amendment after the final rejection was filed [paper                                                                                              
                     no. 6].  It made no changes to the claims, however, it                                                                                                            
                     contained two affidavits questioning the validity of one of                                                                                                       
                     the applied references.  The Examiner, in advisory action                                                                                                         
                     [paper no. 7], commented on the two affidavits as “[i]t is                                                                                                        
                     improper for the Examiner to comment on the validity of a                                                                                                         
                     patent” citing 35 U.S.C.  282.  This issue is, however, not                                                                                                      
                     relevant to this decision.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                          1                                                                                            





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007