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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 SARA MAZUR, BO HAGERMAN, ULF FORSSEN,
SOREN ANDERSSON and FREDRIK OVESJO
___________
Appeal No. 2002-2291
Application No. 09/196,117
__________
HEARD: April 15, 2003
__________
Before KRASS, RUGGIERO, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-11, 13-22 and 24-29.1
Claim 10 stands allowed by the examiner.
1We note that the examiner indicates no status for claims 12 and 23 in the statement of
the rejection. Then, somewhat inconsistently, the examiner explains the rejection of claims 1, 4,
6, 7, 9, 11, 15-18, 21-24 and 28, at page 3 of the answer, in toto, as “Reudink discloses a receiver
system, (a CDMA receiver (102), see fig. 1),” now including at least claim 23 in the rejection but
not including claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 12-14, 19, 20 and 25-27. The examiner does provide explanation,
at pages 4-5 of the answer, for the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26 and
29 but never mentions claims 12 and 27 so it is difficult to tell whether these claims are subject
to rejection or not. Since claim 12 is neither mentioned in the statement of rejection nor in the
rationale for the rejection, we treat this claim as not being subject to rejection.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007