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is not binding precedent of the Board.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 HEATHER D. BOEK and PUSHKAR TANDON
________________
Appeal 2006-2592
Application 10/035,535
Technology Center 1700
________________
Decided: July 26, 2007
________________
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Primary Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 6-31, and 36-37, which are
the only claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a method of
manufacturing an optical waveguide preform by exposing an optical
waveguide soot preform to an atmosphere comprising a chlorine-containing
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013