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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PHILIP L. NELSON
_____________
Appeal No. 96-3613
Application 08/335,4961
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 27
through 36. In the answer (page 2) dated May 30, 1996, the
examiner indicates that claims 28 and 30 are now objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
1Application for patent filed November 7, 1994. According
to appellant, this application is a continuation of Application
08/045,631 filed April 9, 1993, now U.S. Patent No. 5,373,991
issued December 20, 1994.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007