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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte VI T. NGUYEN and PATRICK A. GROSSO
____________
Appeal No. 96-0205
Application No. 08/000,9461
____________
HEARD: June 8, 1999
____________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WALTZ and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 14-25. In response to a new
rejection in the answer, appellants filed an amendment
1Application for patent filed January 5, 1993. According
to the appellants, the application is a continuation-in-part
of Application No. 07/557,196, filed July 24, 1990, now
abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007