Ex parte BARTON - 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                                           (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23                                          

                                               UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                               
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                              
                                                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                             
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                                 Ex parte BRUCE G. BARTON, JR.                                                                                         
                                                                              ______________                                                                                           

                                                                           Appeal No. 1996-1266                                                                                        
                                                                         Application 08/246,8041                                                                                       
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                                      HEARD: September 13, 1999                                                                                        
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                     Before GARRIS, WARREN and KRATZ, 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 finally rejecting                                                            
                     claims 17 through 30, all of the claims in the application.2                                                                                                      
                                We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot                                                              


                     1Application for patent filed May 20, 1994. According to appellant, this application is a continuation                                                            
                     of application 08/119,954, filed September 10, 1993, now abandoned, which application is a division                                                               
                     of application 07/745,548 (‘548 application), filed August 15, 1991, now abandoned. A prior panel of                                                              
                     this board issued a decision in Appeal No. 93-1853 on August 23, 1993, in the ‘548 application                                                                    
                     (Paper No. 17).                                                                                                                                                   
                     2See specification, pages 34-40, and the amendment of May 20, 1994 (Paper No. 3). .                                                                               
                                                                                   - 1 -                                                                                               




Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007