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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT A. KEPPEL, SCOTT F.
MITCHELL and MICHAEL J. MUMMEY
_____________
Appeal No. 94-3287
Application 07/835,1521
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 11, 26 and 27. The only other claims remaining2
in the application, which are claims 12 through 25, stand
1 Application for patent filed February 13, 1992.
2 Claim 26 contains a minor informality in that the subject referred to
by the phrase “about 1.7%” is not specifically identified. Consistent with the
appellants’ specification including appealed claim 1, we interpret the claim 26
phrase “about 1.7%” as though it read --about 1.7% by volume n-butane--. This
informality should be corrected in any further prosecution that may occur.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007