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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ROBERT L. TRIVETT
______________
Appeal No. 96-1126
Application 08/132,0801
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN and KRATZ, 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 7.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Abrams. As 3
pointed out by appellant (brief, pages 3-4), the starting materials used in the process of Abrams will not
1Application for patent filed October 5, 1993.
2Specification, pages 40-41.
3Examiner’s answer, pages 2-3.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007