Ex parte HARTMAN et al. - Page 1






                                             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                                           (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 28                                          

                                               UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                               
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                              
                                                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                             
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                   Ex parte MARVIS E. HARTMAN, MASSIMO P. REI,                                                                                         
                                                   MICHELA CASTAGNONE and STEVEN A. HAMAY                                                                                              
                                                                              ______________                                                                                           

                                                                            Appeal No. 95-4118                                                                                         
                                                                         Application 07/600,7991                                                                                       
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                                                   ON BRIEF                                                                                            
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                     Before WARREN, OWENS and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                                                     

                     WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                                              
                                                                   Decision on Appeal and Opinion                                                                                      
                                This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting                                                            
                     claims 1 through 14, 17, 46 and 47.  Appellants amended claims 1 through 11, 13, 14 and 47 and                                                                    
                     canceled claims 12 and 46 subsequent to the examiner’s answer,  which amendment was entered by2                                                                     
                     the examiner.   Therefore, claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 17 and 47 remain for consideration on appeal.3                                                                                                                                             


                     1Application for patent filed October 22, 1990.                                                                                                                   
                     2Amendment of May 13, 1993 (Paper No. 17). .                                                                                                                      
                     3Supplemental answer of September 30, 1994 (Paper No. 18) (first supplemental answer).                                                                            
                                                                                   - 1 -                                                                                               




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007