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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TIMOTHY P. FITZGERALD, and
DAVID J. ROTHER
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3161
Application 08/090,9211
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, LEE and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 5 and 9. Claims
2-4, 6-8 and 10-17 have been canceled. No claim has been
allowed.
Application for patent filed July 12, 1993. According to the appellants, the1
application is a continuation of application 07/776,201, filed October 15, 1991, now
Patent No. 5,255,251, which is a continuation-in-part of application 07/602,631, filed
October 24, 1990, now Patent No. 5,123,000.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007