Ex Parte HAVEMANN - Page 1



           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                     publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 ROBERT H. HAVEMANN                             
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2005-0287                                 
                              Application No. 09/216,214                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before OWENS, KRATZ and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This appeal was taken pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  134 from the             
          refusal of the examiner to allow claims 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20,           
          22, 24, 26 and 27, which are all of the claims pending in this              
          application.                                                                
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a transistor structure.  An           
          understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of             
          exemplary claims 9 and 10, which are reproduced below.                      







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007