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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HORST ROESCHERT,
JUERGEN FUCHS, WALTER SPIESS,
CHARLOTTE ECKES, GEORG PAWLOWSKI
and RALPH DAMMEL
______________
Appeal No. 96-0472
Application 07/871,0321
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, PAK and WARREN, 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 3, 5 through 14, 16 and 18 through 21. Claims 15, 17 and 22, also of record, have2
been indicated to be allowable.
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
1Application for patent filed April 20, 1992.
2Amendment of April 5, 1993; specification, pages 30-33.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007