Ex parte ASH et al. - Page 1




                                                       Paper No. 20                  

               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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                 

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                   _______________                                   
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                   
                       Ex parte CARLTON E. ASH, JON F. GEIBEL                        
                                AND HAROLD D. YELTON                                 
                                   ______________                                    
                                 Appeal No. 95-1077                                  
                              Application 07/965,6471                                
                                   _______________                                   
                                   ON BRIEF                                          
                                   _______________                                   
          Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and HANLON, Administrative Patent             
          Judges.                                                                    
          HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       
                                                                                    
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final                
          rejection of claims 11 and 12.  Claim 11 was subsequently                  
          canceled in an amendment filed November 25, 1994, in response              

               1Application for patent filed October 23, 1992.                       

                                          1                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007