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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 42
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RONALD M. EVANS,
CARY A. WEINBERGER,
STANLEY M. HOLLENBERG,
VINCENT GIGUERE,
JEFFREY ARRIZA,
CATHERINE C. THOMPSON, and
ESTELITA S. ONG
__________
Appeal No. 2001-25841
Application No. 08/462,817
__________
Heard: June 27, 2002
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
VACATUR and REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Having reviewed the record in this appeal, we have determined that the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, first paragraph, 102 and 103 are not based
upon the correct legal standards. Accordingly we vacate2 the rejections of
record. In addition, there are a number of issues that need to be clarified by the
1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2001-1582 (Application No. 08/464,574). Accordingly, we
have considered these two appeals together.
2 Lest there be any misunderstanding, the term “vacate” in this context means to set aside or to
void. When the Board vacates an examiner’s rejection, the rejection is set aside and no longer
exists. Therefore the issues set forth herein cannot be satisfied by a Supplemental Examiner’s
Answer. See Ex parte Zambrano, 58 USPQ2d 1312, 1313 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007