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law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DEEPAK K. PAI
_____________
Appeal No. 95-1375
Application 08/023,6021
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner refusing
to allow claims 1-10 and 17 which are the only claims remaining in the application. We reverse.2
Application for patent filed February 26, 1993.1
In the final rejection, claims 1-10 and 15-18 were rejected for obviousness. In an amendment after final (paper2
no. 9), appellant, inter alia, canceled claims 15, 16 and 18 and amended claims 7 and 17. In an advisory action (paper no.
10), the examiner approved entry of the amendment and indicated that upon filing an appeal the status of the claims would
be that claims 1-10 and 17 would be rejected. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 17 are before us for
consideration.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007