Ex parte LOO 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                    not binding precedent of the Board.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.  43                                                

                                            UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                      
                                                                         ____________                                                                                      
                                                   BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                      
                                                                    AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                      
                                                                         ____________                                                                                      
                                             Ex parte WILLIAM VAN LOO, JOHN WATKINS,                                                                                       
                                        ROBERT GARNER, WILLIAM JOY, JOSEPH MORAN,                                                                                          
                                        WILLIAM SHANNON, and RAY CHENG                                                                                                     
                                                                         ____________                                                                                      
                                                                   Appeal No. 95-4714                                                                                      
                                                          Application No. 08/046,4761                                                                                      
                                                                         ____________                                                                                      
                                                                             ON BRIEF                                                                                      
                                                                         ____________                                                                                      
                    Before MARTIN, FLEMING, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent                                                                                             
                    Judges.                                                                                                                                                
                    MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                                   

                                                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                                      
                              This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 13, 14,                                                                                 
                    and 17-27, all of appellants' pending claims, as unpatentable                                                                                          
                    under 35 U.S.C.  103.  We reverse and enter new grounds of                                                                                            
                    rejection against claims 13 and 14.                                                                                                                    
                              We note that inasmuch as appellants' reply brief was refused                                                                                 

                              1Application for patent filed April 13, 1993, which is                                                                                       
                    identified as a continuation of Application 07/603,248, filed                                                                                          
                    October 24, 1990 (now abandoned), which is identified as a                                                                                             
                    continuation of Application 07/104,280, filed October 2, 1987                                                                                          
                    (now abandoned).                                                                                                                                       





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007