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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 CRAIG M. CARPENTER and RAYNALD B. CANTIN
_____________
Appeal No. 2006-0595
Application No. 09/932,860
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WALTZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and FRANKLIN, Administrative
Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 13, which
are the only claims pending in this application. Although the
action appealed from is a non-final rejection, we have
jurisdiction since the claims have been twice presented and
rejected. See 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2003); Ex parte Lemoine, 46
USPQ2d 1420, 1422-23 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1998).
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
deposition chamber, such as for chemical vapor deposition (CVD)
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007