Ex parte DANCE 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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 30              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                               Ex parte CREG W. DANCE                                 
                                 and STEVEN L. OLSON                                  
                                     __________                                       
                                 Appeal No. 96-0570                                   
                               Application 08/101,989                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                      REHEARING                                       
                                     __________                                       

          Before ABRAMS, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.               
          ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                               ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                               
               This case comes before us again on request for rehearing               
          of our decision of February 12, 1998, wherein we affirmed-in-               
          part the examiner’s decision and added a new ground of                      
          rejection.  Five points were raised by the appellants.  In                  

                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007