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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JURG FAAS and PETER BRUTSCH
__________
Appeal No. 96-3149
Application 08/305,4281
__________
HEARD: November 13, 1997
__________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 13, 14, 17 and 18. Claims 1 through 7, 10
through 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 have been allowed, and claims 8 and
9 have been canceled.
1Application for patent filed September 13, 1994.
According to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 08/041,679 filed April 1, 1993, now abandoned.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007