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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RICHARD W. SMITH, Jr.
and MARK D. HOWARD
_____________
Appeal No. 96-3130
Application 08/225,6531
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before MEISTER, ABRAMS and STAAB, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Richard W. Smith, Jr. and Mark D. Howard (the appellants)
appeal from the final rejection of claims 2, 11, 22, 23, 26 and
28. Claims 9 and 10 stand allowed. On page 5 of the answer,2
the examiner states that claims 3, 4, 12-21, 27 and 29-33, the
1 Application for patent filed April 11, 1994. According to appellants,
the application is a continuation-in-part of Application 08/145,885, filed
October 29, 1993, now abandoned.
2 Claims 2, 11 and 22 have been amended subsequent to final rejection.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007