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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte IAN D. MORRISON,
JOHN F. OLIVER, JAMES R. LARSON,
EDWARD ANCZUROWSKI and ANTHONY M. WALLACE
______________
Appeal No. 95-3988
Application 07/986,3161
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1 through 14, 17, 18, 20, 25 through 42, 44 through 60, 62, 63, 79 through 83, 88 and 90 and
refusing to allow 84 through 87, 89 and 91 as amended subsequent to the final rejection. After the filing
of appellants’ principal brief, the examiner held claims 84 through 86 and 91 to be allowed and
objected to claims 49 through 60, 62 and 63 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (answer,
1Application for patent filed December 4, 1992.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007