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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 RONALD D. KRESS
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1372
Application No. 08/295,708
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, PATE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 13,
20, 23 and 25. Subsequent to the examiner’s answer, appellant
has filed a terminal disclaimer which has obviated the
standing obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims
13, 20, 23 and 25 and the standing nonobviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 13, 20, 23, 25 and 26.
Therefore, all rejections of claim 26 are withdrawn, and claim
26 stands allowed on this record.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007