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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte REID VON BORSTEL,
JAN M. CASADEI, BALREDDY KAMIREDDY,
JOHN KENTEN, MARK T. MARTIN,
RICHARD J. MASSEY, DAVID M. SIMPSON,
RODGER SMITH, RICHARD C. TITMAS,
RICHARD O. WILLIAMS, and ANDREW D. NAPPER
__________
Appeal No. 2000-08931
Application No. 08/392,407
__________
ON BRIEF2
__________
Before SCHEINER, ADAMS, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 80-150 which are all the claims pending in the
application.
1 This appeal is related, through at least one common parent application, to Appeal No. 2001-
1910 (Application No. 08/325,540), and Appeal No. 2001-1957 (Application No. 08/479,849).
Accordingly, these appeals were considered together.
2 Pursuant to appellants request (Paper No. 43, received February 26, 1999) an oral hearing for
this appeal was scheduled for December 13, 2001. However, we note that appellants waived
(Paper No. 31, received November 16, 2001) their request for oral hearing. Accordingly, we
considered this appeal on Brief.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007