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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte VASEEM FIRDAUS
and PRADEEP P. SHIRODKAR
______________
Appeal No. 95-0706
Application 07/820,4611
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WEIFFENBACH and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 15, 17 through 22, 24 through 32, 35, 36 and 43 through 48. 2 Claims 1, 8, 16,
23, 33, 34 and 37 through 42 are also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by
the examiner as being directed to a nonelected invention.
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain either of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (answer, Paper No. 15, pages 3-5).
1 Application for patent filed January 14, 1992.
2 See, e.g., the amendment of June 5, 1992 (Paper No. 4).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007