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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DEREK D. CHAPMAN
and
CSABA A. KOVACS
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1076
Application No. 09/084,9041
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
of claims 5-14 which are all of the claims remaining in the
application.
1On page 3 of the brief, the appellants indicate that the above
identified application involves patentability issues similar to those of
related applications 09/027,074 (which is now also on appeal) and 09/027,078
(which is now Patent No. 6,270,943). The appellants and the examiner should
consider whether the claims in these related cases (alone or in combination
with prior art) would support an obviousness-type rejection of the claims
before us in the subject appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007