Ex Parte Cuthbertson et al - Page 1

                      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                             for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 ALAN CUTHBERTSON, BARD INDREVOLL,                                          
                 MAGNE SOLBAKKEN, TORGRIM ENGELL, MILL COLIN ARCHER,                                         
                                   and HARRY JOHN WADSWORTH                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-1140                                                
                                          Application 10/753,729                                             
                                         Technology Center 1600                                              
                                                ON BRIEF                                                     
                Before MILLS, GREEN, and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                             
                LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      Claims 1-11, 13-18, 20, and 22 are on appeal.  We have jurisdiction                    
                under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm the rejection under  103, but because                    
                our reasoning differs from the Examiner, we designate it as a new ground of                  
                rejection.  We vacate the obvious-type double-patenting rejection and                        
                remand to the Examiner for further consideration.                                            

                                         STATEMENT OF CASE                                                   

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013