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law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 35
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte BARBARA H. WELLS, HARRISON R. HAKES,
DAVID J. MAYONADO and JOHN P. CHUPP
__________
Appeal No. 95-1189
Application No. 07/800,4711
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KIMLIN, SCHAFER and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicants appeal from a primary examiner’s rejection of claims 35, 38 - 40, 61, 64 - 66, 76,
and 82 - 86, all the claims remaining in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
The examiner rejects all claims over the combination of the teachings of the following
references:
1 Application for patent filed December 6, 1991. According to applicants, this application is a
continuation-in-part of Application 07/626,128, filed December 11, 1990, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007