THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
This opinion (1) was not written for publication and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte STEFAN BLIXT
____________
Appeal No. 95-2572
Application 08/157,451
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, TORCZON, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
OPINION
We have reviewed the record in its entirety in light of the
arguments of Appellant and the examiner. Our decision presumes
familiarity with the entire record. A preponderance of the
evidence of record supports each of the following fact findings.
A. The nature of the case
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 10-15. (Paper 24 (Not. App.).) No other
claims are pending. (Paper 23 at 1.) We reverse.
Appellant filed the subject application on 17 December 1990.
He claims the priority of United States patent application
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007