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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ROBERT MITCHELL BLANKENSHIP
and
JAMES KEITH BARDMAN
__________
Appeal No. 2003-0675
Application No. 09/789,388
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before PAK, WALTZ, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner for further
action and consideration not inconsistent with our opinion
below. 37 CFR §§ 1.196(a) and 1.193(b)(1) (1989, 2000).
As an attachment to a paper captioned “APPELLANT’S REPLY TO
EXAMINER’S ANSWER” (filed Nov. 6, 2002, paper 14), the
appellants submitted new evidence in the form of “Fillers,” in
10 Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 745, 748, 761
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007