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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 37
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte S. CHRISTINE ONG, SANDRA D. SCHREGENBERGER
and PRADEEP P. SHIRODKAR
____________
Appeal No. 96-0359
Application No. 08/083,8661
____________
HEARD: March 12, 1999
____________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WALTZ, and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final rejection of claims
3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14. Claims 10 through 12, the only other claims pending in the application, have
been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as not readable on the elected
invention.
Application for patent filed June 28, 1993. According to appellants, this application is a continuation of1
Application 07/734,989, filed July 24, 1991, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Application
07/665,054, filed March 06, 1991, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007