Ex Parte DATH 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 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