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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HADI K. MAHABADI, ENNO E. AGUR.
THOMAS E. ENRIGHT, JOHN A. CREATURA, MARY L. OTT,
K. DEREK HENDERSON and PAUL J. GERROIR
______________
Appeal No. 2000-0822
Application 09/037,555
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 1 through 11, 13 through 21 and 39 through 57. Subsequent to the final
rejection, appellants cancelled claims 41, 46 and 52, and amended all the other claims. The
examiner withdrew the grounds of rejection of claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 20, 21, 48 and 56, objecting to
the same as not being in condition for allowance.
Accordingly, claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 13 through 19. 39, 40, 42 through 45, 47, 49
through 51, 53 through 55 and 57 remain for consideration on appeal. Claim 12, also of record,
was objected to as not being in condition for allowance in the final rejection. Claims 22 through
38 are also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007