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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 45
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DANIEL R. POTTER
____________
Appeal No. 96-1881
Application No. 08/095,4761
____________
HEARD: December 9, 1997
____________
Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and
McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 37 through 40 and 45 through 54. Claims 55
through 61 have been allowed. Claims 1 through 36 and 41 through
44 have been canceled.2
1Application for patent filed July 23, 1993. According to
the appellant, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/786,704, filed November 1, 1991, now abandoned.
2Subsequent to the final rejection the examiner withdrew
the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 45
through 47 (see Paper No. 28, mailed December 20, 1994) and the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 55 through 61 (see page 2 of
the examiner's answer).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007