Ex parte HAMMER et al. - Page 1




                                                        Paper No. 24                    

               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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                    

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                         
                                    _______________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                            
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    _______________                                     
                             Ex parte KLAUS-DIETER HAMMER                               
                                  AND HERMANN WINTER                                    
                                    ______________                                      
                                  Appeal No. 95-1167                                    
                               Application 07/928,027 1                                 
                                    _______________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                         
                                    _______________                                     
          Before RONALD SMITH, SOFOCLEOUS and OWENS, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                       
          SOFOCLEOUS, Administrative Patent Judge .                                     
                                                                                       
                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                    

               This appeal was originally taken from the examiner's final               
          rejection of claims 1 to 19.  Subsequent to the final rejection,              
          the examiner entered appellants' amendment canceling claim 3.                 
          Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as to claim 3, leaving for              


               Application for patent filed August 11, 1992.1                                                                       
                                           1                                            





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007