Ex parte GILGEN - 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                   publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15                                              

                                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                  
                                                                        __________                                                                                  
                                                BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                  
                                                                AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                   
                                                                        __________                                                                                  
                                                              Ex parte JOHN F. GILGEN                                                                               
                                                                        __________                                                                                  
                                                                 Appeal No. 1996-0876                                                                               
                                                                 Application 08/123,1441                                                                            
                                                                        __________                                                                                  
                                                                          ON BRIEF                                                                                  
                                                                        __________                                                                                  

                   Before CAROFF, HANLON and ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                                   
                   ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                              

                                                                DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                            2                       
                            This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s second rejection  of                                                        
                   claims 1 through 24, all the claims remaining in the application.                                                                                




                            1Application for patent filed September 17, 1993.                                                                                       
                            2We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal since the appellant’s claims have                                                         
                   been “twice rejected” within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 134, even though the rejection                                                           
                   appealed from was not designated by the examiner as being final.                                                                                 





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007