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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THEODORE J. CAMPO, DONALD R. CHAULK, WILLIAM J. FELTON,
MANOHAR S. GREWAL, JOHN A. HINDLEY, JOHN F. KRANTZ,
MARK D. LINCOLN, KEVIN P. MC DONOUGH and JAMES W. WALSH
____________
Appeal No. 96-3555
Application No. 08/297,0211
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, 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 18 through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 51
through 53. Claims 31 through 50 are withdrawn from
consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1
through 17, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 28 have been canceled.
1Application for patent filed August 29, 1994. According
to the appellants, the application is a division of Application
No. 07/628,883, filed December 18, 1990, now U.S. Patent No.
5,399,204.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007