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today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 TERRY L. GILTON
______________
Appeal No. 2006-1466
Application No. 10/230,838
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WALTZ, and TIMM, 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, 9 and 12. Claims 13 through 18 stand allowed by the examiner, while claims
2 through 8, 10 and 11 stand objected to by the examiner as depending on a rejected
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims (final Office action dated April 25, 2005, page
3; Brief, page 2). Claims 1 through 18 are the only claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellant, the invention is directed to a system for removing resist
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007