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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SUBRAHMANYAM CHERUVU, THOMAS E. NOWLIN, S. CHRISTINE ONG,
GIYARPURAM N. PRASAD and PAUL P. TONG
____________
Appeal No. 95-2035
Application No. 08/083,8641
____________
HEARD: March 12, 1999
____________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WALTZ, and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, 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 through 6 and 12 through 14. Claims 8 through 11 and 15, the only other claims pending in the
application, have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as not readable
on the elected invention.
1Application for patent filed June 28, 1993. According to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/857,343, filed March 25, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Application
07/665,054, filed March 06, 1991, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007