Ex parte POTTER - 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                         journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 45                         
                                    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                 
                                                             ____________                                                                     
                                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                  
                                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                                     
                                                             ____________                                                                     
                                                  Ex parte DANIEL R. POTTER                                                                   
                                                             ____________                                                                     
                                                        Appeal No. 96-1881                                                                    
                                                Application No. 08/095,4761                                                                   
                                                             ____________                                                                     
                                                   HEARD: December 9, 1997                                                                    
                                                             ____________                                                                     
                Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and                                                                         
                McQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                               
                NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                            


                                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                    
                         This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                                                               
                rejection of claims 37 through 40 and 45 through 54.  Claims 55                                                               
                through 61 have been allowed.  Claims 1 through 36 and 41 through                                                             
                44 have been canceled.2                                                                                                       



                         1Application for patent filed July 23, 1993.  According to                                                           
                the appellant, the application is a continuation of Application                                                               
                No. 07/786,704, filed November 1, 1991, now abandoned.                                                                        
                         2Subsequent to the final rejection the examiner withdrew                                                             
                the 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 45                                                                 
                through 47 (see Paper No. 28, mailed December 20, 1994) and the                                                               
                35 U.S.C.  103 rejections of claims 55 through 61 (see page 2 of                                                             
                the examiner's answer).                                                                                                       




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007