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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding
precedent of the Board.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.
61
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RALPH G. WHITTEN, RICHARD L. BECHTEL,
MAMMEN THOMAS, HUA-THYE CHUA, ANDREW K. CHAN,
and JOHN M. BIRKNER
____________
Appeal No. 95-2914
Application No. 07/447,9691
____________
HEARD: Apr. 9, 1999
____________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 10, 28-34, 36, and 39, which are
all of the claims pending in this application.
1Application for patent filed December 8, 1989.
According to appellants, this application is a continuation-
in-part of Application 07/404,996, filed September 7, 1989.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007