Ex parte KLICEK

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 1998

08132940 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 7, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL S. KLICEK
____________
Appeal No. 98-0194
Application No. 08/132,9401
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MEISTER, FRANKFORT, and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the refusal of the examiner to
allow claims 1 through 18, as amended subsequent to the final
rejection. These claims constitute all of the claims pending
in this application.
Appeal No. 98-0194
Application No. 08/132,940
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a new rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 3
Application No. 08/132,940
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an automatic control
for energy from an electrosurgical generator. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 1 and 18, which appear in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Auth et al. 4,582,057 Apr. 15,
1986
(Auth)
Bowers et al. 4,727,874 Mar. 1,
1988
(Bowers)
Rexroth et al. 4,739,759 Apr.
26, 1988
(Rexroth)
Ensslin 5,167,658 Dec. 1,
1992
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 4
Application No. 08/132,940
We note that while the examiner's answer (p. 5) does not2
contain a statement of this rejection, it does contain (p. 6)
the same determination of obviousness based on Auth set forth
in the final rejection (pp. 3-4). Accordingly, we will use
the statement of this rejection as set forth in the final
rejection.
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Ensslin and
Rexroth.
Claims 9 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Ensslin, Rexroth
and Auth.2
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bowers in view of Ensslin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the rejections, we
make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed
August 21, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed February 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 5
Application No. 08/132,940
brief (Paper No. 17, filed October 2, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that claim 8 was
"indefinite because exactly what constitutes the drive circuit
being 'altered' [is] unclear." We do not agree.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 6
Application No. 08/132,940
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In making this determination, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art. Id.
The specification (page 9, lines 8-12) sets forth that
the output from the electrosurgical generator 11 is terminated
by altering the drive circuit 33 by using a relay 34 to
disconnect and reconnect the power from the drive circuit 33.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear to us that drive circuit 33,
shown in Figures 1 and 2, constitutes the drive circuit being
altered by feedback signal 28 to turn off the supply of high
frequency electrosurgical energy to the active and return
leads as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 7
Application No. 08/132,940
For reasons set forth infra, we believe that claims 1,3
13 and 18 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Bowers and Ensslin. Accordingly, we consider the teachings of
Rexroth and Auth to be cumulative with respect to these
claims.
The obviousness issues
Claims 1, 13 and 18
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. 3
Claim 1 recites an electrosurgical generator comprising,
inter alia, an active electrode, an active lead, a return
electrode, a return lead, a user control and an automatic
control circuit. Claim 1 further recites that the automatic
control circuit includes, inter alia, a voltage sensing
circuit, a current sensing circuit, a multiplier, a clock, an
integrator and a correlation circuit. The correlation circuit
provides a feedback signal which alters the supply of energy
to the active and return leads when the amount of energy
calculated equals a reference signal sent from the user
control.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 8
Application No. 08/132,940
Claim 13 recites the same elements as set forth in claim
1 but in addition thereto recites that (1) the clock sets
units of time which are about a millisecond, and (2) the
feedback signal is used to terminate the electrosurgical
generator's supply of energy to the active and return leads by
altering a drive circuit thereof.
Claim 18 recites a method of automatically controlling an
electrosurgical generator in response to the level of tissue
impedance between active and return electrodes of the
electrosurgical generator during tissue desiccation. The
steps recited in claim 18 include, inter alia, (1) using an
electrosurgical generator to supply energy to an active
electrode and a return electrode; (2) setting the amount of
energy desired for electrosurgery on a user control; (3)
sensing the voltage level between the active and return leads;
(4) sensing current flowing through the active or return lead;
(5) calculating power flow with a multiplier receiving the
sensed voltage level and current flow; (6) calculating with an
integrator energy supplied through the leads per unit of time
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 9
Application No. 08/132,940
utilizing the calculated power flow and a clock which
establishes the units of time;
(7) providing a correlation circuit to generate a feedback
signal when the amount of energy calculated equals the user
control setting (from step (2)); and (8) altering the supply
of energy to the active and return leads in accord with the
feedback signal.
Bowers discloses an electrosurgical generator with a
high-frequency pulse width modulated feedback power control.
As shown in Figure 1, the electrosurgical generator 10
includes
a control panel 12 having the typical switches and other
control devices for controlling the mode of operation of the
generator 10 and the amount of power to be delivered in each
mode and may include means for adjusting the blend or relative
amounts of cutting and hemostasis which occurs during the
cutting with hemostasis mode of operation. A power output
control signal 18 is supplied from the control panel 12 to
control and generally limit the DC power output 20 from the
supply 16 according
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 10
Application No. 08/132,940
to the amount of power desired. A high-frequency surgical
signal is applied to conductor 32, which is connected to the
active electrode used by the surgeon. Conductor 34 is the
reference potential conductor for the high-frequency surgical
signal and it is connected to the patient plate or inactive
electrode upon which the patient is positioned. When a
bipolar electrosurgical instrument is used, both conductors 32
and 34 are connected to the instrument. Bowers'
electrosurgical generator also includes (1) a current sensor
36 connected in series in the conductor 32 for the purpose of
deriving an instantaneous current sense signal 38 which is
related to the instantaneous magnitude of current flowing in
the conductor 32, and (2) a voltage sensor 40 electrically
connected between the conductors 32 and 34 for the purpose of
deriving an instantaneous voltage sense signal 42
representative of the instantaneous voltage existing between
the conductors 32 and 34. Accordingly, both the instantaneous
output current and voltage of the high-frequency surgical
signal are sensed at a point in the generator 10 where the
surgical signal is delivered. The current signal 38, 48, 68
and the voltage signal 42, 50, 70 are thereafter supplied to a
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 11
Application No. 08/132,940
conventional analog multiplier 72 to generate a delivered
power signal 74 representative of the delivered power. A
selected power signal 66 is provided by adjustment of a
conventional potentiometer (not shown) at the control panel 12
and represents the desired level of power. The selected power
signal 66 is supplied to a scaling circuit 60 which generates
signal 76 representative of the desired output power level.
The desired output power signal 76 and the delivered power
signal 74 are compared at a differential amplifier 78 and an
error signal 80 is generated. This error signal 80 represents
the difference in magnitude between the delivered power and
the desired power. A pulse width modulation circuit 82
receives the error signal 80 and utilizes the error signal to
create a pulse width control signal 84. An amplifier drive
circuit 86 receives the pulse width control signal 84 and
creates a drive signal 90 which controls the operation of the
amplifier 22 of the generator 10. Each driving pulse
establishes the width and hence energy content of each pulse
of the pulse width modulated signal 24. The width of each
pulse of the pulse width modulated signal regulates the output
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 12
Application No. 08/132,940
power of each cycle of the surgical signal. Thus, this power
is ultimately controlled by the pulse width control signal 84.

Ensslin discloses a method and apparatus for determining
the amount of energy dispensed during an electrosurgical
procedure into a patient. Ensslin teaches that as a
consequence of common electrosurgical procedures, significant
amounts of energy are dispensed to a patient's body and that
for reasons of patient safety, and consistent with
conservative surgical procedures generally, it is desirable
for a surgical team to be able to
estimate with reasonable accuracy the amount of electrical
energy
dispensed into a patient over discrete intervals of time
involved in the surgical procedures. Ensslin states (column
1, lines 39-45) that
[i]t is particularly important for the surgical team to
monitor the total energy dispensed into the patient's
body during the entire procedure from start to finish.
Unfortunately, available electrosurgical devices provide
no reliable basis from which accurate determinations of
energy dispensed into a patient can be derived.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 13
Application No. 08/132,940
Figure 3 of Ensslin illustrates a typical system utilized for
electrosurgical procedures but modified by the inclusion of
components useful for the practice of his invention. An
electrosurgical generator 30 has terminals 31, 32 to which are
connected a dispersive patient plate electrode 35 and an
electrosurgical instrument electrode 36, respectively.
Conductors 33 and 34 extend from terminals 31 and 32,
respectively, to connect the dispersive patient plate electrode
35 and the electrosurgical instrument electrode 36 as shown.
Current flowing through the circuit is detected at conductor 33
by means of a current transformer device 45, the leads 47, 49
of which are connected to the terminals 51, 53, respectively,
of an analog to digital converter device 55. An output 57 from
the converter 55 is fed to a central processing unit 60
(referred to hereinafter as a "CPU"). The CPU 60 is connected
by an input cable 63 and an output cable 65 to the
electrosurgical generator 30. The CPU 60 is programmed to
recognize the power setting (percent maximum power) of the
generator 30, and to determine the actual load impedance of the
circuit from the detected current value by reference to the
mathematical relationship between current and impedance
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 14
Application No. 08/132,940
characteristic of the generator 30 at that power setting. A
family of such relationships, as illustrated by Figure 2, may
be stored in memory. The CPU is further programmed to
calculate the power delivered to the surgical target from the
detected current value and the derived impedance value, such
calculations being well-known in the art. Any or all of the
electrical quantities detected, derived, or calculated may be
stored in memory or forwarded to one or more display devices 70
or a printer 75. Ensslin then teaches (column 4, lines 12-21)
that
[i]t is ordinarily desirable for the CPU to perform the
calculations in real time. It is then feasible for the
CPU to control the electrosurgical generator in response
to detected current, calculated power, total energy
dispensed, or any combination of these parameters. For
example, it may sometimes be desirable for the generator
30 to be automatically shut down in response to signals
from the CPU indicating that a predetermined amount of
energy has been dispensed to the target 40 either over a
prescribed increment of time or since the commencement of
a procedure.
Ensslin also discloses (column 2, lines 40-54) that the
computer integrates power over time and drives auxiliary
devices which can terminate power after a predetermined amount
of total energy has been dispensed to the patient. Thus,
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 15
Application No. 08/132,940
Ensslin inherently discloses that his computer includes a clock
and an integrator.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Bowers and claim 1, it
is our opinion that the only differences are the limitations
that
(1) the user control sets the level of energy desired by the
user, (2) the automatic control circuit includes a clock and an
integrator to calculate the amount of energy supplied from the
calculated power flow, and (3) the correlation circuit provides
a feedback signal which alters the supply of energy to the
active and return leads when the amount of energy calculated
equals the reference signal sent from the user control.
Based on our analysis and review of Bowers and claim 13,
it is our opinion that the only differences are the limitations
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 16
Application No. 08/132,940
that (1) the user control sets the level of energy desired by
the user, (2) the automatic control circuit includes a clock
which sets units of time of about a millisecond and an
integrator to calculate the amount of energy supplied from the
calculated power flow, and (3) the correlation circuit is a
comparator which is used to terminate the electrosurgical
generator's supply of energy to the active and return leads by
altering a drive circuit thereof when the amount of energy
calculated equals the reference signal sent from the user
control.
Based on our analysis and review of Bowers and claim 18,
it is our opinion that the only differences are the limitations
that (1) the user control sets the level of energy desired by
the user, (2) a clock and an integrator calculate the amount of
energy supplied from the calculated power flow, and (3) the
correlation circuit provides a feedback signal which alters the
supply of energy to the active and return leads when the amount
of energy calculated equals the reference signal sent from the
user control.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 17
Application No. 08/132,940
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings4
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in
evaluating such references it is proper to take into account
not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the4
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the appellant's invention to
provide Bowers' electrosurgical generator with an energy
measuring and control means as suggested and taught by Ensslin
so that Bowers' electrosurgical generator would be
automatically shut down in response to signals from a CPU
indicating that a predetermined amount of energy has been
dispensed either over a prescribed increment of time or since
the commencement of a procedure. In that regard, it is our
opinion that based upon the combined teachings of Bowers and
Ensslin that one skilled in the art would have (1) provided
Bowers' electrosurgical generator with a clock and an
integrator to calculate energy per unit of time based upon
Bowers' power signal 74, (2) compared the calculated energy per
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 18
Application No. 08/132,940
unit of time to a user energy setting set on Bowers' control
panel 12, and (3) automatically shut down Bowers'
electrosurgical generator when that amount of energy dispensed
equals the user energy setting. In addition, with respect to
claim 13, we believe it would also have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellant's
invention to set the units of time of the clock to be about a
millisecond in view of Ensslin's teaching of performing the
integration continuously in real time.
The appellant's arguments are unpersuasive for the
following reasons. First, the appellant argues (brief, pp. 12-
13) that Bowers contains "no instruction therein to control
energy" and that Ensslin "does not have a voltage measuring
circuit." As to the appellant's argued deficiencies of each
reference on an individual basis, we note that nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior
art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, the
appellant argues (brief, pp. 14, 21 and 22) that there is no
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 19
Application No. 08/132,940
motivation found in the cited references to make the
combination. We do not agree. It is our opinion that
Ensslin's teaching that it is particularly important for the
surgical team to monitor the total energy dispensed into the
patient's body during the entire procedure from start to finish
provides the motivation to the person of ordinary skill in this
art to provide electrosurgical devices such as Bowers with a
system from which accurate determinations of energy dispensed
into a patient can be derived so that the electrosurgical
devices can be automatically shut down when the amount of
energy dispensed equals a predetermined energy setting. Third,
we agree with the appellant's technical background (brief, pp.
10-11) that power and energy are different and that one skilled
in the art would not substitute Ensslin's energy regulation for
Bowers' power regulation. However, for the reasons set forth
above, we believe it would have been obvious to add Ensslin's
energy regulation to Bowers' power regulation to gain the self
evident advantages thereof. Lastly, the appellant argues
(brief, p. 20) that applied prior art does not suggest the
added elements of claim 13. We do not agree. As pointed
above, it is our determination that the only element added by
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 20
Application No. 08/132,940
claim 13 not specifically suggested or taught by the combined
teachings of Bowers and Ensslin is the recitation that the
clock sets the units of time of about a millisecond. However,
while Ensslin is silent as to the units of time utilized, we
observe that an artisan must be presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the references disclose (see In
re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962))
and the conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common
knowledge and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545,
549 (CCPA 1969)). Based upon the "common knowledge and common
sense" of the artisan, it is our opinion that it would have
been obvious to set the units of time of the clock to be about
a millisecond especially in view of Ensslin's teaching of
performing the integration continuously in real time.
Claims 9 through 12 and 14 through 17
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 through 12 and
14 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent claims 9 and 14 each recite the limitation that
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 21
Application No. 08/132,940
the user control has two added adjustors one for setting a
number of packets of energy and another for a preset level
of energy delivered per packet.
The above-noted limitations are not taught or suggested by
Bowers, Ensslin or Rexroth. Therefore, the examiner applied
Auth. Specifically, the examiner determined (answer, p. 6)
that
Auth et al teaches the desirability of controlling the
number of energy pulses administered to a patient. It
would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill
to control the number of pulses delivered, since this is
an [sic, a] recognized way of controlling the energy
delivered to tissue, as taught by Auth et al.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 18-19) that the
specifically claimed circuit "would not have been an obvious
combination." We agree. In fact, even if the references were
combined as set forth by the examiner, the resulting device
would not have the user control as set forth in claims 9 and
14. Specifically, the two added adjustors (i.e., one for
setting a number of packets of energy and the other for a
preset level of energy delivered per packet) recited in claims
9 and 14 are not suggested by the applied prior art. Since all
the limitations of dependent claims 9 and 14 are not suggested
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 22
Application No. 08/132,940
See pages 8-9 of the appellant's brief.5
by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 9 and 14, or claims 10 through 12
and 15 through 17 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claims 2 through 8
The appellant has grouped claims 1 through 8 as standing
or falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR 5
§ 1.192(c)(7), dependent claims 2 through 8 fall with
independent claim 1. Thus, it follows that the examiner's
rejection of claims 2 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also
sustained.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs, for the reasons set forth below.
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 23
Application No. 08/132,940
The deletion of the "added phrase" from claim 8 would6
overcome this new ground of rejection.
Original claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, in the second Office action (Paper No. 5,
mailed January 11, 1995) for the same reason which we have
reversed above. In an attempt to overcome this rejection, the
appellant amended claim 8 (Paper No. 7, filed April 27, 1995)
to add at the end thereof the phrase "in accord with the
feedback quantity to narrow the difference between the energy
calculations and the setting of the user control." We find
this "added phrase" to violate the first and second paragraphs
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the following reasons.6
The "added phrase" is indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention. In this regard,
we note that ther is no proper antecedent basis for "the
feedback quantity." Thus, it would be unclear to the artisan
which element the limitation is intended to refer. We note
that independent claim 1 recites "a feedback signal" not "a
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 24
Application No. 08/132,940
feedback quantity." Additionally, since the feedback signal
28 is generated only when
the energy calculations equal the setting of the user control,
the claimed difference between the energy calculations and the
setting of the user control being narrowed appears to be
misdescriptive.
The "added phrase" lacks the required written desciption,
as the specification, as originally filed, does not provide
support for the invention as is now claimed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 8, 13 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; and the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 9 through 12 and 14 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 25
Application No. 08/132,940
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec.
1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct.
10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, "A new ground of rejection shall
not be considered final for purposes of judicial review."

Regarding any affirmed rejection, 37 CFR § 1.197(b)
provides:
(b) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing
within two months from the date of the original
decision . . . .
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of
rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 CFR
§ 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or a showing of facts relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the application be reheard
under § 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 26
Application No. 08/132,940
Should the appellant elect to prosecute further before the
Primary Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(1), in order to
preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145
with respect to the affirmed rejection, the effective date of
the affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the prosecution
before the examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner
and this does not result in allowance of the application,
abandonment or a second appeal, this case should be returned to
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for final action
on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for
rehearing thereof.

Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 27
Application No. 08/132,940
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 28
Application No. 08/132,940
PETER C. RICHARDSON
PFIZER INC.
235 E. 42ND ST.
NEW YORK, NY 10017-5755
APPEAL NO. 98-0194 - JUDGE NASE
APPLICATION NO. 08/132,940
APJ NASE
APJ MEISTER
APJ FRANKFORT
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Prepared By: Delores A. Lowe
DRAFT TYPED: 17 Mar 98
1st Rev 23 Mar 98
FINAL TYPED: