Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Ex parte SUNDBERG - Page 1

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

                     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          was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not              
          binding precedent of the Board.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 JAMES A. SUNDBERG                               
                                    _____________                                      
                                 Appeal No. 96-3845                                    
                               Application 08/209,2601                                 
                                    ______________                                     
                               HEARD: December 11, 1997                                
                                   _______________                                     

          Before COHEN, MEISTER and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.            
          COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                          

                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                   

               This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1                  
          through 3, 19, and 21 through 24. Claims 4 through 18, the only              
          other claims remaining in the application, stand allowed.                    


               Appellant’s invention pertains to a method of handling                  
          capsules, a capsule handling system, and to a capsule handling               
          method.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a             

                                           1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007