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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NATHANIEL P. LANGFORD and DANIEL H. BISHOP
____________
Appeal No. 94-2864
Application No. 07/911,7291
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RONALD SMITH, WEIFFENBACH and PAK, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s refusal to allow
claims 17 through 20. Claim 20 was amended subsequent to
final rejection. Claims 21 through 31 stand withdrawn from
consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim 17 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows:
1Application for patent filed July 10, 1992. According
to the appellants, the application is a division of Application
07/482,258, filed February 20, 1990, now U.S. Patent
No. 5,146,646.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007