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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 EGIDIO LUCAS DE OLIVEIRA
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-1716
Application No. 10/200,903
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal which involves claims 1,
5-7, 9-12 and 17.1
1As indicated on page 3 of the answer, the examiner has
withdrawn his Section 102 final rejection of claims 2-4 and 8.
According to the examiner, these claims are now “objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims”
(answer, page 2). The examiner’s aforequoted statement is
seemingly inconsistent with his apparent argument in the last
paragraph on page 6 of the answer that Block discloses the
features recited in these claims (which it does not). This
statement also is seemingly inconsistent with the examiner’s
continued rejection of independent claim 10 (and of claims 11, 12
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007