Ex parte RYHAM - 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               and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20           


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                  ________________                                    
                               Ex parte ROLF C. RYHAM                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1998-3168                                  
                             Application No. 08/420,730                               
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    

          Before KIMLIN, WALTZ and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent                    
          Judges.                                                                     
          KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        



                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,                
          5-15, 17-20, 23 and 27.  Claims 2-4, 16, 21, 22 and 26, the                 
          other                                                                       
          claims remaining in the present application, have been                      
          objected to by the examiner.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                      

                                         -1-                                          




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007