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is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JERZY Z. MYDLARZ and ERIC L. BELL
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1835
Application No. 09/919,118
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WALTZ, TIMM, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This is in response to a request for rehearing of certain aspects of our Decision mailed
December 14, 2004. In that Decision, we reviewed two rejections maintained under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), i.e., the rejection of claims 1-22 over Vandenbroucke in view of Hendricks and the
rejection of claims 23-27 over Vanenbroucke in view of Hendricks and further Mydlarz. We
affirmed with respect to both rejections.
The Rejection of Claims 1-22
There is no dispute that the question we addressed in our Decision, i.e., whether it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the two dopants (i.e., the dopants of
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007