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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID E. TOWNSEND and CHUN-MING CHEN
____________
Appeal No. 1999-0111
Application No. 08/484,593
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ELLIS, ROBINSON and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final rejection of
1
claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-16, 19, 20, 22-28, 31, 32, 34-39, 42, 43 and 45-53. Claims 4, 5, 8, 17,
1We note the appellants’ statement on page 4 of the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19)
that the Supplemental Response filed May 7, 1997 [sic] in Paper No. 10 contains an
inadvertent error. According to the appellants, claim 29 was to be canceled, not claim 19.
Since the examiner does not contest this statement, and because the claim change has no
bearing of our disposition of the case, we have listed the claims as indicated by the
appellants. Upon return of the application to the corps, the examiner should take the
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007