Ex parte GEORGES et al. - 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          was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not              
          binding precedent of the Board.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. 13                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                      __________                                       
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                      __________                                       
                     Ex parte MICHAEL K. GEORGES and RAJ D. PATEL                      
                                      __________                                       
                                  Appeal No. 95-1079                                   
                               Application 08/037,1921                                 
                                      __________                                       
                                       ON BRIEF                                        
                                      __________                                       

          Before GARRIS, WEIFFENBACH and WALTZ, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                      
          WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                    

                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the             
          examiner's final rejection of claims 1-23 and 25-49.  The only               
          other claim in the application, dependent claim 24, stands                   
          allowed.   We affirm.2                                                                    

               1Application for patent filed March 25, 1993.                           
               2Claim 24 is dependent on claim 1.  Although the examiner indicated in  
          an advisory action dated December 3, 1993 (Paper No. 7) that this claim was  
          allowed, it should have been objected to because it is dependent upon a      
                                           1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007