Ex parte HUNLEY - 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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22           

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                              Ex parte STEVEN A. HUNLEY                               
                                   _______________                                    
                                 Appeal No. 95-0020                                   
                               Application  08/052,2131                               
                                   _______________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    
          Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of               
          claims 42 through 44 and 46.  Claims 45, 47 and 48 have been                
          indicated by the examiner as being directed to allowable subject            
          matter but stand objected to as relying on a rejected base claim.           
          Claims 8, 10 through 19, 22, 24 through 29 and 31 through 41 have           
          been allowed.                                                               



                                                                                     
          1   Application for patent filed April 23, 1993.  According to              
          appellant, this application is a continuation of Application                
          07/776,141, filed October 15, 1991.                                         





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007