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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ANDRE CLAUSSNER, LUCIEN NEDELEC, DANIEL PHILIBERT
PATRICK VEN DE VELDE, FRANCOIS NIQUE and JEAN-GEORGES TEUTSCH
___________
Appeal No. 2001-1221
Application No. 08/442,957
__________
HEARD: July 9, 2002
__________
Before WINTERS, SCHEINER and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the examiner=s final rejection of
claims 15 and 19, the only claims remaining in the application. The claims on appeal
are reproduced in the Appendix accompanying this opinion.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Teutsch et al. (Teutsch) 4,912,097 Mar. 27, 1990
Loozen 5,272,140 Dec. 21, 1993
The claims stand rejected as follows:1
I. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Teutsch.
II. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Loozen.
III. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Loozen.
DISCUSSION
1 Several rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 were withdrawn in the
Examiner=s Answer, and claim 19 was newly rejected over Loozen.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007