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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT
APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte SENTHIL G. ARUL
_______________
Appeal No. 2005-0276
Application No. 09/736,941
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FRANKFORT, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judge.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Senthil G. Arul appeals from the final rejection of claims 1
through 10, all of the claims pending in the application.1
1
1 The record contains an amendment filed pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.116 on December 15, 2003, but does not indicate whether it
was ever considered by the examiner. Normally, we would remand
the application to the examiner to resolve this discrepancy;
however, in this case we have proceeded to consider the appeal on
its merits since the amendment merely proposes an obvious
correction to the dependency of claim 7 and does not affect the
issues presented for review. This matter should be resolved upon
the return of the application to the technology center.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007