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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FU-PAO TSAO and ROSALIND DANRIDGE
____________
Appeal No. 1996-2766
Application No. 08/258,909
____________
HEARD: February 22, 2000
____________
Before GARRIS, PAK, and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 15 through 17, 19 through
22 and 24. Claims 18 and 23, the only other claims remaining
in this application, stand objected to as being dependent upon
a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. Therefore, claims 18 and 23 are not
included in this appeal (Brief, page 2, and Answer, page 1).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007