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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LAKSHMAN R. SEHGAL,
RICHARD E. DE WOSKIN,
GERALD S. MOSS,
STEVEN A. GOULD,
ARTHUR L. ROSEN
and HANSA SEHGAL
_____________
Appeal No. 96-0352
Application 08/031,5631
______________
HEARD: AUGUST 2, 1999
_______________
Before KIMLIN, JOHN D. SMITH and GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1Application for patent filed March 15, 1993. According to appellants, is application is a
continuation of Application 07/616,727, filed November 21, 1990, now U.S. Patent No. 5,194,590,
granted March 16, 1993, which is a continuation of Application 07/315,130, filed February 23, 1989,
now abandoned, which is a continuation of Application 06/876,689, filed June 20, 1986, now U.S.
Patent No. 4,826,811, granted May 2, 1989.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007