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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 THOMAS DODT, KLAUS KLEINHOFF,
OLIVER SCHURMANN, FRANK GAUTERIN and IVAR VEIT
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0048
Application 09/800,477
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, the
appealed claims having been twice rejected, and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain
the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal:
claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dodt et al. (Dodt ‘306)1
(answer, pages 3-4); and
claims 1 through 3 and 8 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (answer, pages 5-11).2
1 We refer in our opinion to the translation of Dodt ‘306 prepared for the USPTO by Schreiber
Translations, Inc. (October 2003).
2 Claims 1 through 3 and 6 through 21 are set forth in the appendix to the brief filed June 17,
2004. Claims 4 and 5, also of record, stand objected to by the examiner as drawn to allowable
subject matter but dependent on a rejected base claim (Office action mailed March 17, 2004;
page 13). Claims 1 through 21 are all of the claims in the application.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007