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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 JOOST J. BRASZ and BRUCE P. BIEDERMAN
____________
Appeal No. 2006-1959
Application No. 10/293,711
Technology Center 3700
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before OWENS, CRAWFORD and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-15 and
18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection set
forth in the final rejection (mailed April 5, 2005) was not repeated in the examiner’s answer
(mailed October 18, 2005). We thus presume that this rejection has been overcome by the
Terminal Dislaimer filed May 12, 2005 and that claims 4, 5, 11, 16, 17 and 22 stand objected to
as depending from a rejected claim and are not involved in this appeal.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013