Ex Parte BAER 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               today was not written for publication and is not                       
               binding precedent of the Board.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. 19                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
               Ex parte WILLIAM J. BAER, I-MING KAO, PEDRO JACOB, JR,                 
             JANET L. MURRAY, DEIDRA S. PICCIANO and JERRY D. ROBERTSON               
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 2002-2205                                  
                               Application 09/220,291                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    
          Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   



                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
                                                                                     
          This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                      
          from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7.  Claims 8-29 have              
          been allowed by the examiner.                                               




                                         -1-                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007