Ex Parte Saint Victor et al - Page 1




               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               written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                          Ex parte MARIE-ESTHER SAINT VICTOR                          
                                and GRANNIS S. JOHNSON                                
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2002-1107                                 
                              Application No. 09/662,540                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before KRATZ, DELMENDO and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final                 
          rejection of claims 1-8, 12-25, 29-42 and 46-51.1  The subject              
          matter of claims 9-11, 26-28 and 43-45 has been indicated as                
          allowable by the examiner.  Those claims stand objected to as               
          being dependent upon a rejected base claim.  Claim 52, which is             
          the only other claim that remains pending in this application,              


               1 We note that the propriety of the examiner’s objection to            
          claims 18-34 as being substantial duplicates of claims 35-51                
          relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter.           
          See 37 CFR § 1.181 and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure                 
          (MPEP) §§ 706.03(k), 1002 and 1201, (Aug., 2001).  Accordingly,             
          that objection is not before us for review.                                 





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007