Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Ex parte RAO et al. - Page 1

Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2000 > Ex parte RAO et al. - Page 1

          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
                   publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 V. M. MALLIKARJUNA RAO                             
                                        and                                           
                             MUNIRPALLAM A. SUBRAMANIAN                               
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1998-2623                                  
                             Application No. 08/677,062                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before PAK, WALTZ, and TIERNEY, 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 2, 3, 10 and 11.  The                  
          examiner has indicated that claims 1, 8 and 9 are allowed (see              
          the Final Rejection dated Apr. 28, 1997, Paper No. 7; and the               
          Brief, page 1).  Claims 4 through 7 and 12 through 14, the                  
          only other claims in this application, stand withdrawn from                 







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

Last modified: November  3, 2007