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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 34
UNITED STATES BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES C. HUDSON, THOMAS RUSSELL,
CARLOS M. RODRIGUEZ, and WALLACE H. COULTER
____________
Appeal No. 95-28891
Application No. 07/525,231
____________
ON BRIEF2
____________
Before GARRIS, FLEMING, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-32 (Paper No. 9 (Not. App.)). We affirm
in part and enter a new ground of rejection.
BACKGROUND
Appellants filed the subject application for patent on
17 May 1990 (Paper No. 1 (appl. for CIP) at 1). They claim
benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of application no. 07/339,156
filed 14 April 1989, now abandoned; application no.
1Attorney docket no.32267.
2Counsel waived the scheduled oral hearing (Paper No.
33).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007