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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID WATERS
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
_____________
ON BRIEF
_____________
Before MCCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge,
FRANKFORT and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10 and 15
through 20.1
Appellant’s invention relates to a vehicle having a
frame (30), ground-engaging wheels (50) on the frame and a
1 It does not appear that the examiner has appropriately
dealt with amendment D (Paper No. 14) filed with the main
brief on April 28, 1997. The record does not reflect the
status of claims 23, 24, 34 and 35. Amendment D, however,
has no bearing on the rejected claims under appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007