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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ROBERT D. LUNDBERG,
DENNIS G. PEIFFER and ROBERT R. PHILLIPS
______________
Appeal No. 1996-3000
Application 08/304,1051
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and LIEBERMAN, 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 1 through 4, 6 through 9 and 11 through 16 as amended subsequent to the final rejection, which
amendment further cancelled claims 5 and 10.2,3
1Application for patent filed September 9, 1994.
2See the amendment of April 26, 1995 (Paper No. 6). We observe that while claim 10 was canceled
in this amendment, the dependency of both claims 12 and 13 was changed to newly canceled claim 10
from pending claim 11 which depends on cancelled claim 10. Appealed claims 14 and 15 depend on
claim 13 and thus are included in this error. We further observe that claim 7 was amended to include
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007