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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 42
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MILO W. FRISBIE and MAVIN C. SWAPP
____________
Appeal No. 97-1042
Application No. 07/969,5411
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 10,
13 through 15 and 18 through 20.2
1Application for patent filed October 30, 1992.
According to the appellants, the application is a continuation
of Application No. 07/582,819, filed September 13, 1990, which
is a continuation of Application No. 07/413,034, filed
September 27, 1989.
2In the parent application, the Board in a decision dated
June 10, 1992 found claims 1 and 9 to be anticipated by the
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007