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opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 C. RICHARD COSTIN ______________ Appeal No. 95-4682 Application 08/107,5361 _______________ ON BRIEF _______________ Before KIMLIN, JOHN D. SMITH and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge. Decision on Appeal and Opinion This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting claims 1 through 11. Claims 12 through 21 are also of record and stand withdrawn from further consideration. We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot sustain the ground of rejection of appealed claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b)2 as being anticipated by Evani3 or Kent et al. or Kmiec et al., or the ground of rejection of appealed 1 Application for patent filed August 17, 1993. 2 Each of the applied references is applicable prior art to the claimed invention under ' 102(b). 3 The references relied on by the examiner with respect to the grounds of rejection are listed at page 2 of the answer. We refer to these references in our opinion by the name associated therewith by the examiner. - 1 -Page: 1 2 3 4 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007