Ex parte DESBLANCS 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                                      publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 36                        
                                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                        
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                         
                                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                                           
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                        Ex parte ERIC DESBLANCS and BRIGITTE COZ                                                                        
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                                          Appeal No. 1999-0877                                                                          
                                                   Application No. 08/204,441                                                                           
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                                                          HEARD: July 10, 2001                                                                          
                                                                 ____________                                                                           
                 Before KRASS, LALL, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent                                                                             
                 Judges.                                                                                                                                
                 LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                     


                                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                           
                          This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from                                                                       
                 the Examiner's final rejection  of claims 1 to 3, and 5 to 10.1                                                                                
                 Claim 4 has been canceled.                                                                                                             



                          1The two rejections in the final rejection on two                                                                             
                 separate combinations of the references were replaced in the                                                                           
                 Examiner's answer by a single rejection based on a combination                                                                         
                 of the references used in the final rejection.  Appellants                                                                             
                 have had an opportunity to respond, and have responded, to                                                                             
                 this rejection.  Therefore, for the purpose of this appeal the                                                                         
                 rejection based on the combination of Rasmussen, Endo and                                                                              
                 Nokia is considered.                                                                                                                   





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007