Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 1

Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 1

                    THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                      
               This opinion (1) was not written for publication and                   
               (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                             
                                                               Paper No. 59           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    ____________                                      
                               Ex parte OLE K. NILSSEN                                
                                    ____________                                      
                                 Appeal No. 95-3616                                   
                               Application 07/839,065                                 
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      
          Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent                 
          Judges.                                                                     
          TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       
                       FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW                        
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               We have reviewed the record in its entirety in light of the            
          arguments of Appellant and the examiner.  Our decision presumes             
          familiarity with the entire record.  A preponderance of the                 
          evidence of record supports each of the following fact findings.            
          A.   The nature of the case                                                 
               1.   This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final            
          rejection of claims 62, 63, and 66-73.  (Paper 51 at 1.)  The               
          examiner also rejected claim 64 in the answer.  (Paper 54 at 1              







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007