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today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 DAVID ALLEN ROBERTS,
JOHN ANTHONY MARSELLA and
ROBERT EDWARD STEVENS
________________
Appeal No. 2006-0869
Application 09/847,883
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and KRATZ, 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 4 through 11, 13 through 20, 22 and 23.1 Claims 24 and 25 are the only
remaining claims pending in this application and stand withdrawn from consideration by
1The examiner has inadvertently omitted claim 16 from the statement of any
rejection (see the final Office action dated Feb. 24, 2005; Answer, page 3). Appellants
also fail to discuss claim 16 (Brief, page 3; Reply Brief in its entirety). The examiner
does discuss the rejection of claim 16 in the body of the rejection (Answer, page 3). We
consider claim 16 as included in the first rejection on page 3 of the Answer since claim
16 depends on rejected claim 11. We deem the examiner’s error harmless, especially
in view of our disposition of the appealed rejections infra.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007