1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
2 was not written for publication
3 and is not binding precedent of the Board
4
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 ____________________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 ____________________
11
12 Ex parte JOSEPH ORESTE CARNALI and YAN ZHOU
13 ____________________
14
15 Appeal 2006-3000
16 Application 09/758,6851
17 Technology Center 1700
18 ____________________
19
20 Oral Argument: None
21 Decided: September 26, 2006
22 ____________________
23
24 Before: McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and SCHAFER
25 and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
26
27 McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 134
30
31 A. Introduction
32 The appeal is from a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting
33 claims 1-12 on appeal as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
34 European Patent Application 0 851 022 A2, published 01 July 1998.
35 We affirm.
1 Application filed 11 January 2001. The real party in interest is Unilever Home &
Personal Care USA, Division of Conopco, Inc.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007