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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 HU Q. THOMAS
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1538
Application No. 09/950,654
_____________
ON BRIEF
_____________
Before WALTZ, TIMM, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 10-19, and 24-26. Claims 6-9 are
directed to non-elected species and therefore are not under
consideration in this appeal. Claims 20-23 have been canceled.
We note that on page 2 of the answer, the examiner includes
claim 23 in the statement of the rejection. We believe this was
an inadvertent oversight because claim 23 has been canceled.
Brief, page 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and
is set forth in the attached Appendix.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Jewell et al. (Jewell) 6,524,348 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
Seltzer WO 99/05108 Feb. 4, 1999
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007