Ex parte BOMSE et al. - Page 1

                    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                                publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23                 

                              UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                              

                                   BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                
                                               AND INTERFERENCES                                                     

                           Ex parte DAVID S. BOMSE, D. CHRISTIAN HOVDE,                                              
                                              and JOEL A. SILVER                                                     

                                             Appeal No. 1998-1814                                                    
                                         Application No. 08/347,814                                                  

                                          HEARD: November 29, 2000                                                   

             Before HAIRSTON, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                         
             LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                      

                                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                                     

                    This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final                                           

             rejection of claims 110-1771, which are all of the claims                                               

             pending in this application.                                                                            

                    1  The examiner (answer, page 2) states that “claims 115-116, 149-150                            
             are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be                             
             allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of                          
             the base claim and any intervening claims.”  We find this statement to be                               
             inconsistent with the examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.                              
              112, second paragraph (answer, page 3).  We presume that the examiner meant                           
             to say that claims 115-116 and 149-150 would be allowed if rewritten in                                 
             independent form and to overcome their indefiniteness.                                                  

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007