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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 BRUCE G. BARTON, JR.
______________
Appeal No. 1996-1266
Application 08/246,8041
_______________
HEARD: September 13, 1999
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN 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 17 through 30, all of the claims in the application.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
1Application for patent filed May 20, 1994. According to appellant, this application is a continuation
of application 08/119,954, filed September 10, 1993, now abandoned, which application is a division
of application 07/745,548 (‘548 application), filed August 15, 1991, now abandoned. A prior panel of
this board issued a decision in Appeal No. 93-1853 on August 23, 1993, in the ‘548 application
(Paper No. 17).
2See specification, pages 34-40, and the amendment of May 20, 1994 (Paper No. 3). .
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007