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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 WALTER HAECKER and HANS-DIETER DAHMEN
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2671
Application No. 09/258,155
____________
HEARD: January 22, 2002
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3 to 5 and 7. Claims 2, 6 and 8 were
canceled in the response filed August 21, 2000 (Paper No. 6).
The appeal with respect to claims 9 to 11 was withdrawn in the
reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed June 1, 2001). 1
1Claim 8 was directed to be canceled in the response
filed August 21, 2000. However, since the appellants also
amended claim 8 in the response filed August 21, 2000, claim 8
was not canceled. In view of the appellants' statement in the
brief (p. 2) that claim 8 should have been canceled, we view
claim 8 as being canceled. We suggest that a formal amendment
canceling claims 8 to 11 be submitted as soon as possible.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007