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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte PETER KARL MATZINGER,
MICHELANGELO SCALONE and ULRICH ZUTTER
__________
Appeal No. 2003-2146
Application No. 09/546,1431
__________
ON BRIEF2
__________
Before WINTERS, SCHEINER, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25.
Notwithstanding appellants indication (Brief, page 2) that no claims have been
cancelled, claims 1-9 are cancelled. See Paper No. 2, page 2. Of the remaining
pending claims, the examiner has:
• objected to claims 13, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 as being dependent upon
a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form (See Paper No. 3, page 6 and Paper No. 9, page 4);
and
1 The instant application is a divisional of Application No. 09/195,512, filed Apr. 3, 1997, now U.S.
Patent No. 5,902,882, issued May 11, 1999, which is a continuation of Application No.
08/832,253, filed Nov. 19, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,069,245, issued May 30, 2000.
2 In accordance with 37 CFR 1.194(c), the Board decided that an oral hearing was not necessary
in this appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007