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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JAMES C. COPELAND,
HOWARD I. ADLER and WELDON D. CROW
______________
Appeal No. 96-1447
Application 08/028,7641
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and SPIEGEL, 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 refusing to
allow claims 15 through 20 and 48 through 65 as amended subsequent to the final rejection.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the grounds of rejection of the appealed claims either under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) or 103
1 Application for patent filed March 9, 1993. According to appellants, this application is a
continuation of application 07/653,687, filed February 11, 1991, now abandoned, which is a
division of application 07/399,870, filed August 29, 1989, now United States Patent 4,996,073,
issued February 26, 1991.
2 Amendment of November 14, 1994 (Paper No. 17).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007