Ex parte KALMBACH - Page 1





                   THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                       
            The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                
          (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and                    
          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                  
                                                            Paper No. 19              
                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                               Ex parte PAUL KALMBACH                                 
                                   ______________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 95-0715                                   
                               Application 07/936,9421                                
                                   _______________                                    
                             HEARD: September 18, 1997                                
                                   _______________                                    
          Before JOHN D. SMITH, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent               
          Judges.                                                                     
          WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                                 Decision on Appeal                                   
               This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the decision              
          of the examiner refusing to allow claims 1 through 3,5, 6 and               
          17 through 21 as amended subsequent to the final rejection,                 
          which are all of the claims in the application.2  Claims 1 and              
          173 are illustrative of the claims on appeal:                               

                                                                                     
          1  Application for patent filed August 28, 1992.                            
          2  We have entered the amendment after final rejection of                   
          February 14, 1994 (Paper No. 9). We note that this amendment                
          had not been previously entered even though entry upon the                  
          filing of an appeal was indicated in the advisory action of                 
          March 17, 1994 (Paper No. 10) as stated by appellant in his                 

                                     - 1 -                                            



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007