Ex Parte BITAR 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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. 16              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       

                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       

         Ex parte NAWAF K. BITAR, ROBERT M. ENGLISH                                   
          and RAJAGOPAL ANANTHANARAYANAN                                              
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2002-0792                                  
                               Application 08/801,646                                 
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      

          Before KRASS, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.             
          FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of               
          claims 1 through 6, 13, 14, 18 through 34, 40 through 46, and 52            
          through 55.  Claims 7 through 12, 15 through 17, 35 through 39,             
          and 47 through 51 are objected to as being dependent upon a                 
          rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in                 
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007