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opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MARTIN C. WOODLE, IRMA A.J.M. BAKKER-WOUDENBERG, and FRANCIS J. MARTIN ____________ Appeal No. 95-4004 Application 07/858,1711 ____________ ON BRIEF ____________ Before WINTERS, SCHAFER, and GRON, Administrative Patent Judges. Application for patent filed March 27, 1992. According1 to applicants, this application is a continuation-in-part of Application 07/642,231, filed January 16, 1991; which is a continuation-in-part of Application 07/425,224, filed October 20, 1989, now U.S. 5,013,556, patented May 7, 1991, with a different inventive entity. It appears that the applicants’ references to Application 07/642,231, filed January 16, 1991, and claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120, based on and stemming from said application, are incorrect. On the other hand, we note that Application 07/642,321, filed January 15, 1991, issued as U.S. 5,213,804 on May 25, 1993, to the same inventive entity as U.S. 5,013,556, patented May 7, 1991, and that the portion of the term of U.S. 5,213,804 subsequent to May 7, 2008, has been disclaimed. - 1 -Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007