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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JEAN-PIERRE DATH, LUC DELORME, JACQUES-FRANCOIS GROOTJANS,
XAVIER VANHAEREN and WALTER VERMEIREN
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1863
Application No. 09/206,207
____________
HEARD: March 20, 2003
____________
Before WARREN, WALTZ, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 through 9, 12, 13 and 15 through
27, which are the only claims pending in this application.1 We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
process for the production of olefins by the catalytic cracking of
1The amendment dated Sep. 28, 2001, Paper No. 15, subsequent
to the final rejection, was entered as per the Advisory Action
dated Oct. 12, 2001, Paper No. 16 (see the Brief, page 2; Answer,
page 2).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007