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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte LIANG C. DONG,
MICHAEL H. DEALEY, TERRY L. BURKOTH,
PATRICK S. L. WONG, JERRY D. CHILDERS
and BRIAN L. BARCLAY
______________
Appeal No. 95-0815
Application 07/963,9671
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK 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 11, 13 through 15 and 41 through 43, all of the claims in the application.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection of all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C § 103 over Theeuwes et
1 Application for patent filed October 21, 1992. According to appellants, this application is a division
of application 07/804,137, filed December 6, 1991, now U.S. Patent 5,200,195, issued April 6, 1993.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007