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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MATTHEW A. HOWARD, MARK MAYBERG, SEAN GRADY,
ROGERS C. RITTER and GEORGE T. GILLIES
____________
Appeal No. 96-0022
Application 08/096,2141
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner's final rejection
of claims 39, 42, 43 and 44. Claims 1-38 have been canceled,
Application for patent filed July 19, 1993. According to1
appellants, this application is a continuation of Application
07/904,032 filed June 25, 1992, now abandoned, which is a
division of Application 07/463,340 filed January 10, 1990, now
Patent No. 5,125,888.
-1-
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007