Ex parte MACDONALD 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               and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21           


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
                    Ex parte JAMES D. MACDONALD JR. and YAWEI MA                      

                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1999-2381                                  
                             Application No. 08/586,434                               
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    

          Before URYNOWICZ, KRASS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent                
          Judges.                                                                     
          URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                     



                                 Decision on Appeal                                   
          This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-17,                     
          20-40, 43 and 45-48 .  Claims 18, 19, 41, 42 and 44 stand1                                                        

          The brief indicates at page 6, lines 6-9, that claim 211                                                                          
          stands rejected for double patenting and this is in fact the                
          case.  Accordingly, the statement at page 19, item 11, of the               
          answer indicating that claim 21 is objected to and would be                 
                                          1–                                          




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007