Ex parte MORRIS 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of                 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. 28              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
               Ex parte DALE C. MORRIS, BARRY J. FLAHIVE, MICHAEL G.                  
             ZIEGLER,                JEROME C. HUCK, STEPHEN G. BURGER,               
               RUBY B. LEE,         BERNARD L. STUMPF and JEFF KURTZEL                
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 1998-1113                                  
                               Application 08/533,878                                 
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      

          Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       



                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                      
               This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of               
          claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8.  Claims 3 and 6 were objected to as               
          being dependent on a rejected base claim.                                   

                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007