This document was not written with publication in mind
and is not binding precedent of the board
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SRINIVASA R. KOPPOLU, C. DOUGLAS HODGES,
BARRY B. MacKICHAN, RICHARD McDANIEL, RAO V. REMALA,
and ANTONY S. WILLIAMS1
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-1431
Application 09/442,0702 for reissue of Patent 5,801,7013
______________
HEARD: November 14, 2005
_______________
Before MARTIN, HANLON, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final rejection of claims 40-
50 for failing to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. Also, the specification and the proposed new drawing figures stand objected to
1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation. Brief at 10.
2 Filed November 16, 1999.
3 This patent, which issued from Application 08/707,684, purports to be a divisional of
Application 08/229,264, filed April 15, 1994, (now Patent 5,613,058), which is identified as a
continuation-in-part of Application 07/984,868, filed December 1, 1992 (abandoned).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007