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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte INGE MAUDAL
____________
Appeal No. 97-4056
Application No. 08/238,9261
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's rejection
of claims 13, 14 and 20. Subsequent to the final rejection, the
examiner allowed claims 1 through 12 and 19. Claims 15 through
18 have been canceled.
1Application for patent filed May 6, 1994. According to
the appellant, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/880,901, filed May 8, 1992, now U.S. Patent No. 5,336,018,
which is a continuation of Application No. 07/497,489, filed
March 22, 1990, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007