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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte MICHAEL J. LEVEILLE
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1862
Application 08/834,061
_______________
HEARD: March 6, 2002
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and POTEATE, 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 2 through 15 and 34 through 37. Claims 34 through 36 were amended
subsequent to the final rejection and allowed by the examiner. Claims 17 through 20, 38 and 39,
the other claims pending in the application, have been allowed by the examiner. Thus claims 2
through 15 and 37 remain for consideration on appeal.1 Claim 37, exactly as it stands of record,2
is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1 We note appellant’s explanation of the discrepancy between the claims set forth in the notice of
appeal filed April 5, 1999 (Paper 9) and the claims actually on appeal (brief, pages 1-2), and
point out that 37 CFR § 1.191 (1997) does not require that the notice identify the rejected claims
appealed. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205(8th ed., August 2001; 1200-3; 7th ed.,
Rev. 1, Feb. 2000; 1200-3).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007