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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SERGIO KOSTEK, SHU-KONG CHANG,
GORDON McDANIEL, THOMAS PLONA and CURTIS RANDALL
_____________
Appeal No. 95-1276
Application 07/839,9691
______________
HEARD: April 7, 1997
_______________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, STAAB and
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 21-87, which are all the claims pending
in the application. Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
1Application for patent filed February 20, 1992. According
to appellants, this application is a continuation-in-part of
application 07/548,169 filed July 5, 1990, which is a
continuation-in-part of application 07/288,742 filed December 22,
1988, both abandoned.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007