The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHING M. CHUNG,
LILY CHAN,
KELI OU,
SHAO-EN ONG,
TECK K. SEOW,
CYNTHIA R.M.Y. LIANG
MENG L. CHOONG, and
LI K. TAN
__________
Appeal No. 2004-2201
Application No. 09/788,476
__________
ON BRIEF1
__________
WILLIAM F. SMITH, MILLS, and GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILLIAM F. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s refusal to allow
claim 1. Claims 15-17 are stated by appellants to have been indicated allowable by the
examiner. Appeal Brief received December 10, 2003, page 2.
1 We note that a request for oral hearing was made on pages 5-6 of the Reply
Brief. Requesting oral hearing in a Reply Brief did not comply with the then existing
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.194(b)(“If appellant desires an oral hearing, appellant must
file, in a separate paper, a written request for such hearing . . ..”). In view of our
disposition of the appeal, appellants’ request for oral hearing is moot.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007