Ex parte BERRY et al. - 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          not binding precedent of the Board.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 RICHARD E. BERRY, SUSAN F. HENSHAW                      
           and DAVID J. ROBERTS                                                       
                                     __________                                       
                                 Appeal No. 96-1396                                   
                               Application 08/176,3351                                
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      

          Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and CARMICHAEL, Administrative                   
          Patent Judges.                                                              
          JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                 
          from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15, which constitute              


               Application for patent filed January 3, 1994.1                                                                     
          According to the appellants, the application is a continuation              
          of Application 07/888,221, filed May 26, 1992.                              
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007