The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL P. DANIELS,
YEN-LANE CHEN, ALBERT I. EVERAERTS,
STEPHEN E. KRAMPE and JAMES K. YOUNG
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1889
Application No. 09/367,455
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WALTZ, DELMENDO and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-10.
On page 2 of the Brief, appellants state that the claims
stand or fall together. In the Brief, appellants provide
arguments only for the subject matter of claim 1. We observe,
in the Reply Brief, that appellants have separately argued
claims 1, 8, 9, 10. However, 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) and
(8)(2001) pertains to arguments provided in the Brief in
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007