The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. Paper No. 17 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte PAUL LEBLANS, PETER WILLEMS, LUC STRUYE, JOHANN-MARTIN SPAETH, and THOMAS PAWLIK _____________ Appeal No. 1997-2937 Application No. 08/420,562 ______________ HEARD: NOVEMBER 16, 2000 _______________ Before PAK, WALTZ, and TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s refusal to allow claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 11 through 13 and 15 through 18 as amended subsequent to the final rejection (see the amendment dated July 1, 1996, Paper No. 8, entered asPage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007