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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PHILLIP E. MATTISON
____________
Appeal No. 95-1851
Application 07/902,1861
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and LEE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, 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 1-4. 2 We reverse.
Application filed June 22, 1992.1
Appellant's Amendment C (Paper No. 7) is indicated on2
the file wrapper as not having been entered. However, the appeal
brief at 1 states that the examiner indicated that the amendment
would be entered upon the filing of an appeal and assumes that
the amendment will be entered. The examiner's answer states on
page 1 that "appellant's statement of the status of amendments
after final rejection contained in the brief is correct." The
examiner's answer also states that the statement of the status of
-1-
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007