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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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