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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 42
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte FORREST M. BIRD
________________
Appeal No. 95-3184
Application 07/981,9101
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT and McQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
1Application for patent filed November 23, 1992.
According to appellant, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/400,730, filed August 30, 1989, now abandoned,
which is a division of Application 07/145,734, filed January 14,
1988, now U.S. Patent No. 5,007,420, issued April 16, 1991, which
is a continuation of Application 06/671,491, filed November 14,
1984, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of
Application 06/516,133, filed July 21, 1983, now U.S. Patent No.
4,592,349, issued June 3, 1986, which is a continuation-in-part
of Application 06/291,622, filed August 10, 1981, now abandoned,
which is a continuation-in-part of Application 06/261,929, filed
Apr. 3, 1981, which is a continuation-in-part of Application
06/250,586, filed April 3, 1981, now abandoned. The appellant
may wish to review the foregoing parent application data which is
set forth on page 1 of the specification since it would appear
that the reference to Application 06/261,929 instead should be to
Application 06/261,629.
-1-
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007