Ex parte LUNDBERG et al. - Page 1






                                             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                                           (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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