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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FRIEDER KLOSTER
____________
Appeal No. 96-0122
Application No. 08/096,5811
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, TORCZON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 7. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 12), claims
1 and 3 through 7 were amended. After entry of the amendment,
the examiner allowed claims 6 and 7, and objected to claims 3 and
4 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but explained
that these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
1Application for patent filed July 21, 1993.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007