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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT D. ROSENTHAL
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2855
Application 08/190,2271
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH, and HECKER Administrative Patent
Judges.
1Application for patent filed February 01, 1994.
According to the appellant, this application is a continuation
-in- part of 08/007,967, filed 01/22/93, now U.S. Patent No.
5,576,544, which is a continuation of 07/717,198, filed
06/18/91, now U.S. Patent 5,204,532, which is a continuation -
in- part of 07/682,249, filed 04/09/91, now U.S. Patent No.
5,068,536, which is a continuation -in- part of 07/565,302,
filed 08/10/90, now U.S. Patent No. 5,077,476, which is a
continuation -in- part of 07/544,580, filed 06/27/90, now U.S.
Patent 5,086,229, which is a continuation -in- part of
07/298,904, filed 01/19/89, now U.S. Patent No. 5,028,787.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007