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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 JOSEF PEDAIN,
MANFRED BOCK and CARL-GERD DIERIS
______________
Appeal No. 1999-1415
Application 08/784,875
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer and supplemental answer, and appellants, in
the brief and first and second reply briefs,1 and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain
the sole ground of rejection of appealed claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 through 11, 13, 15, 17 and
1 The supplemental examiner’s answer of November 13, 2002 (Paper No. 12) was prepared in
response to our remand entered August 21, 2002 (Paper No. 11), and appellants in turn filed the
second reply brief on April 9, 2003 (Paper No. 13) which, after our remand entered April 18,
2003 (Paper No. 14), was entered by the examiner in the communication mailed September 8,
2003 (Paper No. 15).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007