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is not binding precedent of the Board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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WEI-YUNG HSU,
JOING-PING LU,
AUGUST J. FISCHER
and
MING-JANG HWANG
___________
Appeal No. 2001-0776
Application No. 09/276,043
___________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WALTZ, PAWLIKOWSKI and POTEATE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Claims 3 and 5-10 have been canceled.
On page 3 of the brief, appellants state that the claims do
not stand or fall together. However, we note that in appellants’
brief, with regard to claims 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14, appellants
simply repeat the recitations in these claims, and do not argue
patentability with specificity. We therefore need only consider
claims 1 and 11 in this decision (we consider claim 11 because
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007