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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 KLAUS-JUERGEN PEES, GUENTER KRUMMEL,
HENRY VAN TUYL COTTER, GUIDO ALBERT, ANNEROSE REHNIG,
LESLIE MAY and WALDEMAR PFRENGLE
___________
Appeal No. 2005-0977
Application No. 09/840,488
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before ELLIS, SCHEINER and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-9, reproduced in Appendix I of appellants’ Brief on Appeal, filed March 22,
2004.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Pfrengle 5,981,534 Nov. 9, 1999
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Pfrengle.
In addition, claim 9 stands rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, as
lacking enablement.
We affirm the anticipation rejection, and do not reach the enablement rejection.
DISCUSSION
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007