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not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 DEAN HATFIELD and PAUL KIUNKE
____________
Appeal No. 96-0948
Application No. 08/262,4001
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MEISTER, ABRAMS, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18 and 22-25. Claims
19 and 21 have been allowed, and claims 3 and 13 have been
1Application for patent filed June 20, 1994. According to
appellants, this is a continuation of Application No.
07/989,408, filed December 11, 1992, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007