Ex parte CHAN et al. - Page 1






          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was              
          not written for publication is not binding precedent of the                 
          Board.                                                                      
                                                            Paper No. 14              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                                Ex parte KIN S. CHAN,                                 
                                   HUNG QUI LE and                                    
                                   DUNG Q. NGUYEN                                     
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1998-2661                                  
                                Application 08/633,267                                
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before THOMAS, FLEMING and HECKER, Administrative Patent                    
          Judges.                                                                     
          THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   

               Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner's              
          final rejection of claims 1 through 16, 18 and 19.  The                     
          examiner has allowed claim 20 and has objected to claim 17 as               
          being                                                                       
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007