Ex parte MALONEY 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                       journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29                                                   

                                  UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                          
                                                      ________________                                                               
                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                            
                                                     AND INTERFERENCES                                                               
                                                      ________________                                                               
                            Ex parte JOHN E. MALONEY, CHARLES J. HINKLE, JR.                                                         
                                                 and JAMES O. STEVENSON                                                              
                                                      ________________                                                               
                                                    Appeal No. 98-3299                                                               
                                                 Application 08/335,3311                                                             
                                                      ________________                                                               
                                                   HEARD:  MAY 7, 1999                                                               
                                                      ________________                                                               
               Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT and LALL, Administrative Patent                                                              
               Judges.                                                                                                               
               LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                    


                                                    DECISION ON APPEAL                                                               
                       This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1                                                        
               through 4 and 6 through 93.  Claim 5 has been canceled.                                                               
                       The disclosed invention concerns the apparatus and the                                                        

                       1Application for patent filed November 3, 1994.                                                               
                                                                -1-                                                                  





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007