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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CANDANCE B. PERT
and MICHAEL R. RUFF
__________
Appeal No. 1996-0160
Application 07/898,6911
__________
HEARD: SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, ELLIS and ROBINSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1 through
5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 17 and 19 through 22 and 24. Claims 6, 8, 13,
1Application for patent filed June 15, 1992. According to the appellants, this
application is a continuation-in-part of Application 07/718,587, filed June 20, 1991, now
abandoned; which is a continuation of Application 07/568,616, filed August 16, 1990, now
U.S. Patent 5,276,016; which is a continuation of Application 07/314,507, filed February
15. 1989, now abandoned; which is a continuation of Application 07/048,148, filed May,
11, 1987, now abandoned; which is a continuation-in-part of Application 06/878,586, filed
June 26, 1986, now abandoned; which is a continuation-in-part of Application 06/869,919,
filed June 3, 1986, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007