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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SERGIO KOSTEK, SHU-KONG CHANG,
GORDON McDANIEL, THOMAS PLONA, CURTIS RANDALL,
JEAN-PIERRE MASSON, JAMES C. MAYES and KAI HSU
_____________
Appeal No. 96-4183
Application 08/235,6251
______________
HEARD: April 7, 1997
_______________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, STAAB and
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 7, 10-16 and 19-24, which are all the
1Application for patent filed April 29, 1994. According to
appellants, this application is a continuation-in-part of
application 07/839,969 filed February 20, 1992, which is a
continuation-in-part of application 07/548,169 filed July 5,
1990, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of
application 07/288,742 filed December 22, 1988, now abandoned.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007