Ex Parte ABRAMOV 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               written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31                

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       

                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
               Ex parte RON ABRAMOV, YOAV BEN DROR, AMIR GAASH, DAVID                 
                        LESHEM, YEHUDA NIV, and BENNY POUPKO                          
                                Appeal No. 2001-0843                                  
                             Application No. 08/945,415                               
                                     __________                                       
                              HEARD: AUGUST 14, 2002                                  
                                     __________                                       

            Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH, and RUGGIERO, Administrative                  
            Patent Judges.                                                            
            RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.                                    
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
                 This is a decision on the appeal from the final                      
            rejection of claims 1-24.  An amendment filed May 1, 2000                 
            after final rejection, which canceled claims 8-13 and 19-24,              
            was approved for entry by the Examiner.  Accordingly, only                
            the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 14-18 is before                
            us on appeal.                                                             






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007