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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 41
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte BEAT MOLLET, JOHN PEEL, DAVID PRIDMORE,
NADJI REKHIF and BRUNO SURI
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1926
Application No. 08/693,3531
__________
HEARD: March 6, 2003
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER and GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 23-26,
28, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42-47 and 51-54.2
Claims 23, 24, 36, 42, 45 and 46 are representative of the subject matter on
1 Application for patent filed August 6, 1996.
2 Claims 23-54 are pending in the application. Claims 23-47 and 51-54 were
finally rejected in paper no. 13, while claims 48-50 were withdrawn from consideration
as drawn to non-elected subject matter. An Advisory Action (paper no. 18), mailed May
11, 1998, indicated that claims 23-26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42-47 and 51-54 were
still rejected, but claims 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 and 41 were merely objected to as
dependent on a rejected base claim. In the examiner’s most recent Advisory Action
(paper no. 23) mailed August 17, 1998, the status of the claims was as follows: claims
23-26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and 51-54 stood finally rejected; claims 27, 29, 31,
33, 35, 39 and 41 were objected to as depending from a rejected base claim; claims 43-
47 were not addressed. According to the examiner’s Answer (paper no. 27), claims 43-
47 still stand rejected, but claim 34 does not. Claim 37 is not addressed in the most
recent Advisory, nor in the Answer.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007