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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SUPPAYAN M. KRISHNAKUMAR, WAYNE N. COLLETTE
and THOMAS E. NAHILL
____________
Appeal No. 95-3789
Application No. 08/047,0471
____________
HEARD: March 3, 1998
____________
Before COHEN, PATE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's rejection
of claims 15 through 22, which are all of the claims pending in
this application.
We REVERSE and enter a new rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
1Application for patent filed April 12, 1993. According to
the appellants, the application is a continuation of Application
No. 07/831,053, filed February 4, 1992, now abandoned, which was
a division of Application No. 07/493,779, filed March 15, 1990,
now U.S. Patent No. 5,104,706.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007