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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 FENG LIN and BRIAN JOHNSON
__________
Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 40, 45, 50, and 55.
The Examiner has objected1 to claims 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 15-21, 23,
26, 41-44, 46-49, 51-54, and 56-59. Claims 37-39 have been
allowed.
1 We note that claims 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 15-21, 23, 26, 41-44, 46-49, 51-54 and
56-59 were objected to in the final office action as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, and that none of the cited claims was actually rejected.
We also note that Appellants’ proposed amendment rewriting the cited claims
in independent form to include the limitations of the base claims and any
intervening claims was not entered. Additionally, we note that the cited
claims as presented on appeal are “objected to”. We have consequently
declined to rule on the merits of the Examiner’s objection to the cited claims
or the Examiner’s refusal to enter the proposed amendment since such issues
are not properly appealable before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences. See 35 U.S.C. § 134.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007