The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007