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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board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 PANG-CHIA LU, ROBERT M. SHEPPARD,
DONALD J. BURNS, ROBERT A. MIGLIORINI,
SAL J. PELLINGRA, KAREN ANN SHEPPARD and
ROBERT GUTHRIE PEET
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0715
Application 09/757,175
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 5, 29,1 31 through 36 and 38. The only other claims pending in this
application are claims 8 through 27 and 37, which stand withdrawn from consideration
1We note that claim 29 is an improper dependent claim since it depends on
previously canceled claim 2. Upon the return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, the examiner and appellants should correct this claim dependency.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007