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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 STEVEN P. HOUTCHENS
____________
Appeal No. 1997-4217
Application No. 08/307,178
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, HECKER and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection1
1An amendment after the final rejection (bearing the
certified mailing date of October 15, 1996) is indicated to be
filed as paper no. 16 and is indicated as approved for entry
by paper no. 17. The amendment corrected only § 112, second
paragraph, problems [brief, pages 1 and 2]. The Examiner’s
answer did not raise any § 112, second paragraph, problems,
but only the section 103 rejection. It is clear that the
amendment after the final rejection was in fact considered
before the answer was written, even though the date of the
entry of the amendment appears in the file record as after the
dates of the briefs and the answers. So the claims as amended
(continued...)
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007