The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte HUNG VAN NGUYEN, DONALD B. BURSILL, JAMES Y. MORRAN,
MARY DRIKAS and VERONICA L. PEARCE
Appeal No. 2006-2023 1
Application No. 10/650,785 2
ON BRIEF
Before: HANLON, DELMENDO and LANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. Introduction
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of all pending claims in application 10/650,785 (“the ‘785 application”), i.e.,
claims 1-26. We affirm. However, because our reasoning differs from that of the
examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to ensure the appellants’ procedural safeguards.
1 The application on appeal was received at the Board on 30 March 2006.
2 The application on appeal was filed on 29 August 2003. The real parties-in-interest are Orica Australia
and South Australian Water Corporation.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007