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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ZAEV SHARABY
______________
Appeal No. 94-2078
Application 07/834,7551
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WEIFFENBACH and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 12 through 15 and 28 through 32.2,3 Claims 16 through 22 are also of record and have
been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner as directed to a nonelected invention.
1 Application for patent filed February 12, 1992. According to appellant, this application is a division
of application 07/509,687 (‘687 application), filed April 16, 1990, now U.S. Patent No. 5,112,522,
issued May 12, 1992, which is a division of application 06/854,203 (‘203 application), filed April 21,
1986, now U.S. Patent No. 4,918,151, issued April 17, 1990, which is a continuation-in-part of
application 06/660,180, filed October 12, 1984, now abandoned.
2 See, e.g., specification, pages 18-19, and the amendment of October 19, 1992 (Paper No. 5).
3 While the claims on appeal were stated as “[c]laims 15-18 and 28-32” in the brief (Paper No. 9,
page 1), we note that the notice of appeal of April 16, 1993 (Paper No. 8) correctly identifies the
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007