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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte KEVIN P. ARMANIE, ROBERTO J. RIOJA,
DIANA K. DENZER, CHARLES E. BROOKS, WALTER D. COKER,
DANIEL K. GADBERY and ROBERT NEWELL
______________
Appeal No. 1996-1223
Application 08/218,6761
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CAROFF, JOHN D. SMITH and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner refusing to allow
claims 1, 2, 4 through 14, 16 and 17 as amended subsequent to the final rejection.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
1Application for patent filed March 28, 1994.
2See the amendment of April 27, 1995 (Paper No. 7) which was entered by the examiner in the
advisory action of May 15, 1995 (Paper No. 8) but has not been clerically processed.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007