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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 RONALD C. ANDERSON and DAVID A. MEYERS
____________
Appeal No. 96-2623
Application No. 08/240,0951
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, 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 1, 4 and 5. Claims 6 through 12 have been
allowed. Claims 2 and 3 have been objected to for depending from
a rejectable base claim. Claim 13 has been canceled.
1Application for patent filed May 9, 1994. According to
the appellants, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/689,024, filed September 16, 1991, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007