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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SERGE TAVERNIER, WERNER OP DE BEECK,
JEAN-PIERRE GHEKIERE, and MICHEL VERVOORT
____________
Appeal No. 1998-2128
Application No. 08/628,281
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, PAK, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-11. Claim 1-12 are all of the claims
pending in the application.1
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate that the examiner acknowledged allowable subject
matter in claim 12. The office action of Paper No. 10, on page 5, indicates
that claim 12 has been 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. Hence, the
status of claim 12 remains as being objected to by the examiner.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007